Reading other people's mail

[Jerrysch]

To suggest that one cannot find "doctrine" from parts of the Bible not written to believers in Messiah 2,000 years later is like suggesting that a person cannot learn about the love between his mother and father by reading a letter composed to the mother from the father. Indeed the letter is written from one to the other, not to the world in general, but much of that love between them can be learned, (that's doctrine) by way of reading those words written to someone else.

To suggest that no doctrine can come from parts of the Bible which were not written to us today is in the same vein. Of course promices given to a particular people were not given to mankind in general, judgements on particular nations are not to be spread to mankind in general, yet much doctrine can be learned regarding the nature of our God and His ways. To limit ones doctrine to the writtings of but one of Scriptures inspired writters is to miss the universal truths which are contained in each and every chapter of all Scripture.

 

[eph3Nine]

To suggest that one cannot find "doctrine" from parts of the Bible not written to believers in Messiah 2,000 years later is like suggesting that a person cannot learn about the love between his mother and father by reading a letter composed to the mother from the father. Indeed the letter is written from one to the other, not to the world in general, but much of that love between them can be learned, (that's doctrine) by way of reading those words written to someone else.

I dont believe anyone suggested that one cannot find "doctrine" written to to believers in the MESSIAH 2000 years later.....what has BEEN SAID over and over is that the doctrine found there is not addressed TO us or ABOUT us, but addressed specifically to and about the Nation ISRAEL and her KINGDOM program. That program has since been HALTED by none other than God HIMSELF, and SET ASIDE to usher in a NEW program which was heretofore HID IN GOD and KEPT SECRET.

Doctrine to and ABOUT the Nation Israel is NOT to be applied to we who are the Church which is His BODY! It simply isnt FOR us. Can we learn from it? Certainly. Is it for our obedience? NOT at all!

To suggest that no doctrine can come from parts of the Bible which were not written to us today is in the same vein. Of course promices given to a particular people were not given to mankind in general, judgements on particular nations are not to be spread to mankind in general, yet much doctrine can be learned regarding the nature of our God and His ways. To limit ones doctrine to the writtings of but one of Scriptures inspired writters is to miss the universal truths which are contained in each and every chapter of all Scripture.

Also, no one has implied or discounted those truths which are indeed UNIVERSAL...but we DO keep separate those things which are Israels and dont mix them up with those things given ONLY to we the Body of Christ.

 

[Jerrysch]

I dont believe anyone suggested that one cannot find "doctrine" written to to believers in the MESSIAH 2000 years later.....what has BEEN SAID over and over is that the doctrine found there is not addressed TO us or ABOUT us, but addressed specifically to and about the Nation ISRAEL and her KINGDOM program. That program has since been HALTED by none other than God HIMSELF, and SET ASIDE to usher in a NEW program which was heretofore HID IN GOD and KEPT SECRET.

Doctrine to and ABOUT the Nation Israel is NOT to be applied to we who are the Church which is His BODY! It simply isnt FOR us. Can we learn from it? Certainly. Is it for our obedience? NOT at all!





Also, no one has implied or discounted those truths which are indeed UNIVERSAL...but we DO keep separate those things which are Israels and dont mix them up with those things given ONLY to we the Body of Christ.

I thought you were ignoring my posts?!

 

[Jerrysch]

I dont believe anyone suggested that one cannot find "doctrine" written to to believers in the MESSIAH 2000 years later.....what has BEEN SAID over and over is that the doctrine found there is not addressed TO us or ABOUT us, but addressed specifically to and about the Nation ISRAEL and her KINGDOM program. That program has since been HALTED by none other than God HIMSELF, and SET ASIDE to usher in a NEW program which was heretofore HID IN GOD and KEPT SECRET.

Doctrine to and ABOUT the Nation Israel is NOT to be applied to we who are the Church which is His BODY! It simply isnt FOR us. Can we learn from it? Certainly. Is it for our obedience? NOT at all!



Also, no one has implied or discounted those truths which are indeed UNIVERSAL...but we DO keep separate those things which are Israels and dont mix them up with those things given ONLY to we the Body of Christ.

I do recall you having said that our "sound doctrine" only comes by way of the writtings of Paul.

 

[Beasley]

Paul said "1 Corinthians 10:1

Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

Them - beginning with Moses and the children of Israel.

Its important to observe who is being addressed in any given passage. Look how often Paul quotes the Old Testament. If you are going to understand the New Testament, you have to understand the Old. For example, behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world' means nothing without understanding the Levitical sacrifice. Christ who is our Passover.

Beasley

 

[eph3Nine]

I do recall you having said that our "sound doctrine" only comes by way of the writtings of Paul.

I believe the emphasis "I" put on it was that "OUR" sound doctrine only comes by way of the LAST revelation given to mankind which was TO Paul. ALL the bible is for doctrine, reproof and correction...but ONLY Pauls letters contain the doctrine that is written specifically TO and ABOUT the Body of Christ.

YOU know what I said....why purposely twist it? Maybe this is the reason I HAD you on ignore....LOL...wink.

 

[Jerrysch]

Paul said "1 Corinthians 10:1

Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

Them - beginning with Moses and the children of Israel.

Its important to observe who is being addressed in any given passage. Look how often Paul quotes the Old Testament. If you are going to understand the New Testament, you have to understand the Old. For example, behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world' means nothing without understanding the Levitical sacrifice. Christ who is our Passover.

Beasley

 

[Jerrysch]

YOU know what I said....why purposely twist it? Maybe this is the reason I HAD you on ignore....LOL...wink.

It is not my intent to twist anything you have said, my intent is to have you present your beliefs clearl so that the difference between what your beliefs and non-pauline dispensationalism might bee seen. I am sorry if you consider my analysis twisting, I am seeking to bring to light how your dispensationalism differs from what is notrmally considered as dispensationalism. Since you are continuelng to post here, you can expect that I will continue to point out how pauline dispensationalism differs with what many consider to be "traditional dispensationalism", and how it is really inconsistant with the Word of God.

 

[eph3Nine]

It is not my intent to twist anything you have said, my intent is to have you present your beliefs clearl so that the difference between what your beliefs and non-pauline dispensationalism might bee seen. I am sorry if you consider my analysis twisting, I am seeking to bring to light how your dispensationalism differs from what is notrmally considered as dispensationalism. Since you are continuelng to post here, you can expect that I will continue to point out how pauline dispensationalism differs with what many consider to be "traditional dispensationalism", and how it is really inconsistant with the Word of God.

LOL....I think that in over three thousand posts here that I have more than adequately and more than CLEARLY represented mid acts dispensationalism. We ALL know how it differs from "mainline accepted christian beliefs"...but who cares???? The majority has never been the criteria for what is TRUE, and its not especially impressive to either God or those of us who truly DO see Gods purpose and plan thru right division.

Of course Pauline dispensationalism differs from that which is tradition. Would you expect it NOT TO? LOL LOL. Just because you REJECT it doesnt mean its NOT TRUE!

As for it being inconsistent with the Word of God......really? Seems we have posted enough scripture in here to choke a horse. You reject that as well.

This is why you are on ignore by most of us.

 

[Jerrysch]

As for it being inconsistent with the Word of God......really? Seems we have posted enough scripture in here to choke a horse. You reject that as well.

This is why you are on ignore by most of us.

I do not reject Scripture, I reject your interpretation of it . I think it has been demonstrated as to its faulty nature.

 

[eph3Nine]

Yea , right....LOL......NOT!!!!!


Bye now

 

[Jerrysch]

Yea , right....LOL......NOT!!!!!


Bye now

Yet you have failed to suggest why Christians in this time frame should not draw any doctrine from the other parts of Scripture. There is much of the Glory of God which Paul did not speak upon, in fact, Paul expected his readership to be familiar with most if not all of the Old(er) Testament!! If he had not then he would have gone into great detail as to who Moses was/is for if we limit our doctrine to the writtings of Paul... we will never know who this person is, for Paul never tells us...he expects us to draw that doctrine from the Old(er) Testament. To read Paul's writtings in a vacuum (and that would be what one would be doing if we ignore the doctrine of the rest of the Scripture) would leave his message only half stated. Trying to see the Golry of God by only reading Paul's writtings is like trying to understand a movie by only seeing the last five minutes of it.

 

[timlamb]

I do not reject Scripture, I reject your interpretation of it . I think it has been demonstrated as to its faulty nature.

Keep up the good work Jerry. There are always new people watching, so we must keep the truth flowing.

Gee eph3nine, only three thousand posts? Is that all together or just this month?

 

[Tychicum]

What is your definition of "doctrine"?

While Eph is a bit like a blunt instrument at times ..

She has a point. It is dangerous to blindly extract doctrine from just anywhere.

Have you sold all that you own and dispersed it among the poor ...?

.

 

[Jerrysch]

She has a point. It is dangerous to blindly extract doctrine from just anywhere.



.

You are correct, I do not advocate that at all, yet to ignore or state that one cannot find doctrine in any part of Scripture other than those written by Paul is a little far fetched. The Golry of God is the business we are to be about, and much of it is contained in the non Pauline writtings, but of course we must never take Scripture out of its context, this then is a sobering task, is it not?

 

[Jerrysch]

What is your definition of "doctrine"?


.

If we look at a lexicon meaning we will find;
Didaskalia

1. teaching, instruction
2. teaching
   1. that which is taught, doctrine
   2. teachings, precepts

It really seems to be a generic word indicating what is taught or an instruction. It could be from the blue print of a 747 or from the writtings of Moses.
But here on this thread I think the whole premice has been taken wrong. It is as if it has been suggested that the context of what is being said is less important than who wrote it. If it was written by Peter, it isn't for us. Even though Peter has some universal truths which apply to believers in all ages. Even though Peter's work is equally given by inspiration, the meer fact that it was Peter who penned it, it is thrown out. In my opening statement, I suggested that much can be learned from mail which is not addressed to you personally, I will stand behind that.

 

[Jerrysch]

Have you sold all that you own and dispersed it among the poor ...?

.

No I have not, but I am not suggesting that No doctrine can come from where you found this in Scripture either.