The True Meaning of Romans 9-11

Danoh · Oct 31, 2014

Just goes to show what I have asserted all along - that some on here consistently reveal that theirs is, at best, a surface knowledge of Scripture, combined with their learning more from books based notions, their consistent reading into and guessing at, and failure to do exhaustive study on every word and or phrase or passage via other passages of Scripture.

Not to leave out BW's exact conclusion about them - their consistent habit of taking their interpretation of a thing as another's.

shturt678s · Oct 31, 2014

Rev20 said:
LOL! Thanks for cutting me some slack, Old Jack.

.

Our Lord cut me a lot of slack long ago with my checkered past before the Lord.

Old Jack's view

BTW show me one passage grammatically and contextually where naos = "Temple"??? I'll racant all being successively refuted.

Rev20 · Oct 31, 2014

shturt678s said:
Our Lord cut me a lot of slack long ago with my checkered past before the Lord.

Old Jack's view

BTW show me one passage grammatically and contextually where naos = "Temple"??? I'll racant all being successively refuted.

These probably don't count, but they are as close as I can come:

"Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?" -- Matt 23:16-17

"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." -- Matt 23:35

"And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself." -- Matt 27:5

"And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple." -- Luke 1:21

"Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?" -- John 2:20

"But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months." -- Rev 11:2

.

Rev20 · Oct 31, 2014

shturt678s said:
Our Lord cut me a lot of slack long ago with my checkered past before the Lord.

Old Jack's view

BTW show me one passage grammatically and contextually where naos = "Temple"??? I'll racant all being successively refuted.

I believe I finally figured out what you are talking about, Old Jack:

(2411) hieron, hee-er-on; neuter of (2413); a sacred place, i.e. the entire precincts of the Temple (at Jerusalem or elsewhere): temple. Whereas (3485) (naos) denotes the central sanctuary itself.

Thanks.

.

shturt678s · Nov 1, 2014

Rev20 said:
These probably don't count, but they are as close as I can come:

"Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?" -- Matt 23:16-17

"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." -- Matt 23:35

"And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself." -- Matt 27:5

"And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple." -- Luke 1:21

"Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?" -- John 2:20

"But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months." -- Rev 11:2

.

Matt.23:21, "...swears by the Sanctuary (naos).." In the case of the Sanctuary He goes still further by omitting the gold and everything in its construction and by making the Sanctuary (naos) one with God who dwells in it, ie, God did not dwell in any of the four courtyards in the Temple (ieron, however did in the Most Holy Place in the Temple.

God dwelt in the Sanctuary (naos) in the Temple (ieron) complex

Matt.23:35, "...between the Sanctuary (naos) and the altar." No ieron here...Temple here either? Between the Sanctuary (naos) (Holy of Holies and Holy Place) and the altar of burnt sactrifice, thus in the very presence of God.

Will back off again giving you more slack from an old man.

Old old Jack

Interplanner · Nov 1, 2014

23:35 assumes the temple, jack.

Beware of supporting too much on synonyms, unless they say so like Gal 3:16. If he wants to split a letter off, he tells us.

shturt678s · Nov 2, 2014

Interplanner said:
23:35 assumes the temple, jack.

Beware of supporting too much on synonyms, unless they say so like Gal 3:16. If he wants to split a letter off, he tells us.

"Sanctuary" within the "Temple" in Matt.23:35 is a game changer in the majors (cannot address here as off topic), ie, the Koine is more specific than the English....assumes "Sanctuary" contextually, grammatically, and aspectually my brother. God never did dwell in the four courtyards in the Temple nor in the other parts of the "Temple" complex, ie, dwelt in the central structure in the "Temple"......."Sanctuary" (Most Holy Place and Holy Place......NAOS) not ieron "Temple".

btw like Gal.3:16, he didn't split the letter off, ie, illustrates the fact previously stated.

Old Jack's opinion

Interplanner · Nov 2, 2014

But the temple terms are synonyms that he did wield against each other. Jn 2, destroy this temple, naos. He meant the whole thing. As does hieron in 8:59. Do you think the inner area was going to get saved some how?

And we also have the artefact about Mt24:15 that holy place included the Levitical staff surburb district, which makes Mt24 and Lk21 (when you see it surrounded) more harmonized. It ran some 1000 cubits around the temple, or 1500 feet radially. But it was called the holy place (topo hagio). You can't generate doctrines from synonymization like this like you can Gal 3:16, so 3:16 is of no service to you.

shturt678s · Nov 3, 2014

Interplanner said:
But the temple terms are synonyms that he did wield against each other. Jn 2, destroy this temple, naos. He meant the whole thing. As does hieron in 8:59. Do you think the inner area was going to get saved some how?

And we also have the artefact about Mt24:15 that holy place included the Levitical staff surburb district, which makes Mt24 and Lk21 (when you see it surrounded) more harmonized. It ran some 1000 cubits around the temple, or 1500 feet radially. But it was called the holy place (topo hagio). You can't generate doctrines from synonymization like this like you can Gal 3:16, so 3:16 is of no service to you.

Only my opinion, only trying to help, ie, Jn.2:19, "...Destroy this Sanctuary,..." Construed with ICor.6:19, render "Sanctuary."

Only a head's up, ie, Jn.2:19 contains a veiled mashal...similar to the German Sinnspruch and you don't want to keep it veiled would you my brother?

Again the term naos refers to the Sanctuary proper comprising the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, as distinct from ieron which included the ENTIRE Temple area with its various extensive courts and structures.

Only old Jack's opinion

Interplanner · Nov 3, 2014

So he was talking about a destruction-image in which the invaders would go in with tweezers and not ruin the inner? Certainly not.

shturt678s · Nov 5, 2014

Interplanner said:
So he was talking about a destruction-image in which the invaders would go in with tweezers and not ruin the inner? Certainly not.

What's astonishing is I've been promulgating far and wide the difference between ieron and naos in the more exact Koine Greek for almost 3 decades impacting a very very few, ie, I only hope that my posits is lucid, coherent and to the point where the sin of not bridging the gap with others doesn't lay upon the rest of my sins.

Thank you again for your patience, ie, we can agree to disagree my bother.

Old Jack's opinion

Danoh · Nov 5, 2014

Though not as to timing nor as to means, I'd have to agree with Interplanner on this one Jack.

By the way, I only call "brother" those whose testimony as to their understanding of salvation I have heard whether directly or within their posts.

For me, the test is have they ever believed not only that Christ died for their sins, but that His having risen again for their justification is complete in God's eyes, or did they believe they could add to that thrir being made perfect in the flesh?

Further, they either believed the latter, and are thus of the family of God, or somewhere along the way were misled into holding the belief that having begun in the Spirit, they are now made perfect in the flesh?

If the latter, they are still in the family, but fallen from an understanding of God's sufficiency in His Son, and simply need to have this understanding of Christ formed in them again.

Thus, in my understanding, one is either a brother in Christ, whether or not they have been moved away from that simplicity. These two are my brother.

While those who started out believing in some work on their part, who have remained in that, are, too me, lost.

Has one ever believed Christ died for their sins, and rose again for their justification through HIS life, that's my "brother" test.

I believe BAB2, is my brother on that basis, for example - we drive each other up a wall, but I believe he is my brother based on this "brother test" I just shared here.

If he is not an example of my test case belief, well, lets just say the dear brother drives me up the wall, and likewise, I'm sure

Those I believe have failed this Romans 5 brother test, I would direct to that chapter, as a start.

I like using the word "brother" I just don't feel comfortable doing so until I know I an dealing with someone who believes their sufficirncy is in Christ.

Tallguy88 · Nov 24, 2014

MOD HAT ON

This thread has undergone a cleanup of posts that were flaming or goading other members. Please remember to address the subject of the post not the poster personally.

MOD HAT OFF

BABerean2 · Nov 26, 2014

Danoh said:
Though not as to timing nor as to means, I'd have to agree with Interplanner on this one Jack.

By the way, I only call "brother" those whose testimony as to their understanding of salvation I have heard whether directly or within their posts.

For me, the test is have they ever believed not only that Christ died for their sins, but that His having risen again for their justification is complete in God's eyes, or did they believe they could add to that thrir being made perfect in the flesh?

Further, they either believed the latter, and are thus of the family of God, or somewhere along the way were misled into holding the belief that having begun in the Spirit, they are now made perfect in the flesh?

If the latter, they are still in the family, but fallen from an understanding of God's sufficiency in His Son, and simply need to have this understanding of Christ formed in them again.

Thus, in my understanding, one is either a brother in Christ, whether or not they have been moved away from that simplicity. These two are my brother.

While those who started out believing in some work on their part, who have remained in that, are, too me, lost.

Has one ever believed Christ died for their sins, and rose again for their justification through HIS life, that's my "brother" test.

I believe BAB2, is my brother on that basis, for example - we drive each other up a wall, but I believe he is my brother based on this "brother test" I just shared here.

If he is not an example of my test case belief, well, lets just say the dear brother drives me up the wall, and likewise, I'm sure

Those I believe have failed this Romans 5 brother test, I would direct to that chapter, as a start.

I like using the word "brother" I just don't feel comfortable doing so until I know I an dealing with someone who believes their sufficirncy is in Christ.

It takes friction to sharpen steel. Although we argue over whose steel is being sharpened. It would most likely be both.

The Word is a two edged Sword that should be sharp on both edges.

We should all be worried if we never disagree. That is the stuff cults are made of.

During the last few months I have learned a great deal about God's Word from those who agree and oppose my views.

Before God created the universe He knew we would be here discussing the interpretation of His Word at this time.

We serve an awesome God.

Biblewriter · Dec 6, 2014

BABerean2 said:
It takes friction to sharpen steel. Although we argue over whose steel is being sharpened. It would most likely be both.

The Word is a two edged Sword that should be sharp on both edges.

We should all be worried if we never disagree. That is the stuff cults are made of.

During the last few months I have learned a great deal about God's Word from those who agree and oppose my views.

Before God created the universe He knew we would be here discussing the interpretation of His Word at this time.

We serve an awesome God.

We all learn through discussion, and even debate. And as long as it is done respectfully, it is good.

Biblewriter · Jan 5, 2015

eclipsenow said:
I put to you that other than maybe sharing a few 'count-down' details (like being premil) there is NOT ONE church father that shares dispensational confusion about how the OT relates to the NT, or who would reduce the gospel era by leaving bits of the OT era unfulfilled. Please, show me evidence of actual dispensational BIBLICAL THEOLOGY in the ECF's, and I will concede my point. Otherwise you're just being dishonest with yourself and us if you try to claim a few 'count-down' details as proving they were dispy. Similar end times details don't even matter! They are irrelevant! All that matters is what is the heart of being dispensational, and that is the messed up biblical theology and confusion over who God's kingdom is today.

Here is an exact quotation from the very oldest surviving Christian commentary on Bible prophecy (of any significant length.)

Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God. Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be. (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXV, section 2)

Here we find Irenaeus, writing a little over a hundred years after the temple in Jerusalam had been destroyed, Insisting that there would in the future be a temple in Jerusalem, and that this temple would be "the temple of God."

But the point of this thread is what the scriptures themselves say, not what others think about what they mean. Go back to the multi-part OP and try to answer that.

eclipsenow · Jan 5, 2015

Biblewriter said:
Here is an exact quotation from the very oldest surviving Christian commentary on Bible prophecy (of any significant length.)

Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God. Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be. (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXV, section 2)

Here we find Irenaeus, writing a little over a hundred years after the temple in Jerusalam had been destroyed, Insisting that there would in the future be a temple in Jerusalem, and that this temple would be "the temple of God."

But the point of this thread is what the scriptures themselves say, not what others think about what they mean. Go back to the multi-part OP and try to answer that.

You're being slippery and avoiding the question because you can't answer it. That quote from Irenaeus proves him to be premil, but not dispy.

Biblewriter · Jan 5, 2015

eclipsenow said:
You're being slippery and avoiding the question because you can't answer it. That quote from Irenaeus proves him to be premil, but not dispy.

You demand was, "Please, show me evidence of actual dispensational BIBLICAL THEOLOGY in the ECF's, and I will concede my point."

I showed you where Irenaeus clearly stated that there would again be an temple in the earthly Jerusalem, and that that temple would be "the temple of God." That is not just premil. It is dispensational doctrine, whether you admit it or not.

For a temple in the earthly Jerusalem to be "the temple of God," God has to recognize that temple as his own. This doctrine is wholly incompatible with both Covenant Theology and Preterism.

eclipsenow · Jan 6, 2015

Biblewriter said:
You demand was, "Please, show me evidence of actual dispensational BIBLICAL THEOLOGY in the ECF's, and I will concede my point."

I showed you where Irenaeus clearly stated that there would again be an temple in the earthly Jerusalem, and that that temple would be "the temple of God." That is not just premil. It is dispensational doctrine, whether you admit it or not.

For a temple in the earthly Jerusalem to be "the temple of God," God has to recognize that temple as his own. This doctrine is wholly incompatible with both Covenant Theology and Preterism.

It's just premil, whether you admit it or not. "Temple of God' as opposed to temple of Baal. It doesn't confuse the kingdom of God with Jewish claims to perceived lacks in the gospel! It doesn't confuse who the children of God are today: Irenaeus was very clear on that! It's classic premil, and you're drawing a long bow. No, you're breaking the low bow!

"This doctrine is wholly incompatible with both Covenant Theology and Preterism."
This doctrine is wholly incompatible with Christianity actually!

Biblewriter · Jan 7, 2015

eclipsenow said:
It's just premil, whether you admit it or not. "Temple of God' as opposed to temple of Baal. It doesn't confuse the kingdom of God with Jewish claims to perceived lacks in the gospel! It doesn't confuse who the children of God are today: Irenaeus was very clear on that! It's classic premil, and you're drawing a long bow. No, you're breaking the low bow!

"This doctrine is wholly incompatible with both Covenant Theology and Preterism."
This doctrine is wholly incompatible with Christianity actually!

Do you deny that a claim that the temple in the earthly Jerusalem will be rebuilt, and that it will be "the temple of God," is dispensational doctrine?

Yes, this was "classical pre-mil." But "classical pre-mil" is itself wholly incompatible with Preterism, and a doctrine that a future temple in the earthly city of Jerusalem will be something that an apostle calls "the temple of God" is wholly incompatible with Covenant Theology.

If you had even bothered to read the quotation I posted, you would have noticed that Irenaeus made great stress of the fact that the Apostle had to be speaking of the one true God when he called this future temple in the earthly Jerusalem the "the temple of God."

And contrary to your implications, dispensationalism most certainly does not "confuse the kingdom of God with Jewish claims to perceived lacks in the gospel!" And it most certainly does not "confuse who the children of God are today."

The True Meaning of Romans 9-11

Newbie

Regular Member

Partial Preterist

Partial Preterist

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

We shall see the King when he comes!

Newbie

Senior Member

Senior Member

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Senior Member

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Senior Member

Similar threads