# "They" in Romans 1



## Artfuldodger (Aug 27, 2016)

Paul starts out speaking to "you" or the Gentiles of Rome. It's you, you, you until  verse 18 where he switches to them or "they."
"They"  know the truth about God. 

I don't think this is a revealing by natural law. An atheist astronomer isn't going to see some new planet and think, Oh my there is a God.

No this group knew the Law. This group was Israel. The Gentile did not now God's decree or ordinance.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 27, 2016)

Romans 1:23 
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Compare to Psalm 106:19-21
The people made a calf at Mount Sinai; they bowed before an image made of gold.They exchanged their glorious God for an image of a bull, which eats grass.They forgot the God who saved them, who had done great things in Egypt,

Compare to Jeremiah 2:5
This is what the LORD says: "What fault did your ancestors find in me, that they strayed so far from me? They followed worthless idols and became worthless themselves.

Compare to Jeremiah 2:11
Has a nation ever changed its gods? (Yet they are not gods at all.) But my people have exchanged their glorious God for worthless idols.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 27, 2016)

They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator.

creation stopped worshiping the Creator and worshiped creation instead. 

The married bride exhancged her marriage and worshiped the creature by exchanging natural married sex for that of the creature.
Israel quit worshiping God and started worshiping the creature.

The bride(Israel) turned to Idolatry.

Jeremiah 3:1
"If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and marries another man, should he return to her again? Would not the land be completely defiled? But you have lived as a prostitute with many lovers-- would you now return to me?" declares the LORD


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 27, 2016)

Could this be leading up to the "day of  wrath" which was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, not a final judgment at the end of time?

Who are "they" that were suppressing the truth that they knew?
Who were they that exchanged the worship of God for that of idols?

Romans 1:18
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 27, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Could this be leading up to the "day of  wrath" which was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, not a final judgment at the end of time?
> 
> Who are "they" that were suppressing the truth that they knew?
> Who were they that exchanged the worship of God for that of idols?
> ...



I will give you my point of view, but it does not mean that it is correct or the only one.  The "they" that exchanged  the worship of God for that of idols were the establishment patriots who were part of the theocracy. Their idol was the state, the nation. They were patriots, not fringe para-nationalists but true nationalists. And the god they served was Isreal itself.

In John they are willing to kill Jesus so that the nation of Isreal, the jews, will remain safe and intact as a people in the promised land.

So for me they are willing to kill God, even if that they know  that the works and words of Jesus fit with their understanding of the Savior in scripture-- which they are experts at. But Isreal is more important. 

And therefore "they" the conservative patriots are really worshiping what God has created and not God himself. And although they most likely know better, and know what they are doing is wrong, the pull of being a special people, a people God created, is stronger than the pull of our God himself.

And I suggest that this is the problemo.

 And also I think this sin is still possible today.  People are not only super patriots in outlook sometimes, they worship the state, the nation, and call it of God's design as justification. But they will not call it worship, they will call it being patriotic and defense of our way of life... which perpetuates the sin if it is one and discounts all critics as unpatriotic or even enemies of the state and therefore enemies of God.
In other words their hearts become hardened and their ears don't hear---yet they claim blessing from the Father and demand to be known as  the most real Christians.

But maybe I'm 100% out to lunch on this.


----------



## Israel (Aug 28, 2016)

The God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ is just as different/distinct, (Holy) set apart from any gentile/pagan perception/conception of God, than an Israelites.

All men stumble at the stumbling stone, Jew and Greek, alike.
Who was said to be of among all women born, that of the prophets, none had arisen greater?  Yet who was also said to be less than the least in the Kingdom of God?

Is this for the despising or deriding of John? God forbid. This is truth to our instruction and benefit.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 28, 2016)

Israel said:


> The God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ is just as different/distinct, (Holy) set apart from any gentile/pagan perception/conception of God, than an Israelites.
> 
> All men stumble at the stumbling stone, Jew and Greek, alike.
> Who was said to be of among all women born, that of the prophets, none had arisen greater?  Yet who was also said to be less than the least in the Kingdom of God?
> ...



All men or women stumble(d) equally? What of the men and women ( Jew and Gentile alike), who knew in their hearts the God that had saved the Hebrew captives from persecution in Egypt? And who knew in their hearts and believed before Jesus said it, " How long God had willed to gather to Himself the people like a mother hen? " ( John 12:44-45)

They that knew the Father, both Jew and Gentile, believed did they not! They that believed left the pharisees to follow Jesus. ( John 12:19). Jesus was not a stumbling block to all, they saw the Father, who had drawn them previous, in Jesus and they saw the signs of the Father in the miracles of Jesus and they therefore believed in Jesus as being the one sent as the promised Savior.


John 12:44-45

44 Jesus cried out and said, “He that believeth in Me, believeth not in Me, but in Him that sent Me.
45 And he that seeth Me, seeth Him that sent Me.

 I suggest that some of the Jews and the Gentiles knew our Lord and did not stumble. They loved God for the Spirit that He is, and confused not the spirit of his creations with His. They confused not His will with all kinds of other wills.


----------



## Israel (Aug 28, 2016)

Some then, of natural inclination?


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 28, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Could this be leading up to the "day of  wrath" which was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, not a final judgment at the end of time?
> 
> Who are "they" that were suppressing the truth that they knew?
> Who were they that exchanged the worship of God for that of idols?
> ...



Art, can you show me where the Bible says there will be an end of time? Not a time of the end, which is about the end of the age, but an end of time. That would help me understand things as most people see them.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 28, 2016)

Israel said:


> Some then, of natural inclination?



Natural inclination? What is natural inclination? Natural inclination to me is the scripture of the pagan, who through nature's natural inclination finds the same God that built up the Hebrew. To me this is natural inclination. Unnatural inclination is the pagan blind to the one God we know.  And for various reasons unnaturally worships creation itself and creations and not The Creator. He is no different than the declared Christian or the Jew who worships the state, who's father and mother are the state today though it would be hard to convince they do this despite their reasonings and works--as an example.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 28, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Art, can you show me where the Bible says there will be an end of time? Not a time of the end, which is about the end of the age, but an end of time. That would help me understand things as most people see them.



I can't, so the day of wrath must have been in 70AD. I think time only ends for lost sinners who die when they die. Saved sinners gain eternal life. There is no way for time to end if we gain eternal life. 

We all have our last days on earth. Then it's either over or we move to the beyond. I'm not planning on coming back.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 28, 2016)

God's revelation to His People of His decree of the age of time. (Gen. 1:1).  
Time is an element of creation.
An age is a defined segment for time.  
The age is the unity of time.
The beginning of the age is the point of creation.
Thus, the creation is the beginning of time and the beginning of the age.
The end of the age is ...

Note: the age of xxx is a subdivision of the age (an age).


Sorry for the edit; just couldn't get the third line right.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 28, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Art, can you show me where the Bible says there will be an end of time? Not a time of the end, which is about the end of the age, but an end of time. That would help me understand things as most people see them.



Rev. 10:6 comes to my mind.

" And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:"

In heaven,there will be no need of the sun,because Jesus will be the light there.
Jesus demonstrated this at creation when He waited until the fourth day to create the sun.(notice..plants were already growing...without the sun)what!?...but scientists say plants MUST have the sun for photosynthesis,right?...WRONG


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 28, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Rev. 10:6 comes to my mind.
> 
> " And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:"
> 
> ...



Time any longer or no more delay? It could just be a chronus or whole period that is ending, a duration.

And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, and said, "There will be no more delay!

Revelation 10:7
But in the days when the seventh angel is about to sound his trumpet, the mystery of God will be accomplished, just as he announced to his servants the prophets."

What was the mystery Paul received by revelation? Is this the same mystery revealed in Revelation 10:7? What event happened that allowed Paul to start preaching to the Gentiles? Did Paul have to wait until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD?

Maybe it's the mystery of predestination or seeing Jesus as he is and becoming like him.

Colossians 2:2
I want them to be encouraged and knit together by strong ties of love. I want them to have complete confidence that they understand God's mysterious plan, which is Christ himself.

Colossians 2:9
For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body.

1 John 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 29, 2016)

Art, I think it is better translated " delay no longer ".

 This is drawing off Daniel 12:7 which is about the time of the end.
7 Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time, times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.

Revelation 10:6New King James Version (NKJV)

6 and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and the things that are in it, the earth and the things that are in it, and the sea and the things that are in it, that there should be delay no longer


----------



## welderguy (Aug 29, 2016)

Art, Hobbs,

Someone, explain to me when there will no longer be a need for the sun.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 29, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Art, Hobbs,
> 
> Someone, explain to me when there will no longer be a need for the sun.



Welder, in the New Jerusalem there is no need of sun or moon. It is a spiritual city. Jesus is the light and His reign is forever.

Now, how does an end to the cosmos correlate with this?
Ephesians 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

It's better translated age without end.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 29, 2016)

It is very difficult to use language, which God ordained to be used by temporal creatures, to communicate something that is not temporal.  In Eph. 3:21 Paul wanted to communicate the limits of the reign of God within which he, Paul, wished to pray for God's glory.  Above I said that "the age is the unity of time"; that is: "the age" consists of all of the subdivisions of time ("ages"), which occur with the limits of the creation.  Paul here wanted to not limit his prayer for God's glory to that which occurs within creation, but expand it beyond the limiting factor of creation.  Our best English word for that is probably eternity, but defining eternity without using the limiting concept of time proves quite difficult.  Hobbs phrase "age without end" is a worth attempt, but still used time (age) to describe that which is not time.  Paul used a somewhat different phrase,  _αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων_ which translates to "age of the ages".  Kinda like "(the age)s"; plural of that which includes all temporal ages, or maybe "all of the alls".  For now we are stuck with "eternity", a concept which we are not equipped to adequately define.

Hey, to describe the "world" in which God exists, we would have to be there, right.  Praise God, He has promised.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 29, 2016)

Hummer. As for eternity I agree. Does this translation not better show your point? Eternity= forever and ever.

Berean Study Bible
to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 29, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Welder, in the New Jerusalem there is no need of sun or moon. It is a spiritual city. Jesus is the light and His reign is forever.
> 
> Now, how does an end to the cosmos correlate with this?
> Ephesians 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
> ...



Yes,I agree.But I believe all things which are temporal will cease to be at a future time, obviously because they are temporal.

You seem to be conveying(without plainly saying it) that some temporal things will continue to go on in existence right along with the eternal things.That makes no sense to me and is not scriptural.

If I have misunderstood you, please correct me.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 29, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Yes,I agree.But I believe all things which are temporal will cease to be at a future time, obviously because they are temporal.
> 
> You seem to be conveying(without plainly saying it) that some temporal things will continue to go on in existence right along with the eternal things.That makes no sense to me and is not scriptural.
> 
> If I have misunderstood you, please correct me.



Let me plainly say this. I know of nowhere in scripture that says the cosmos will end.

Usually this conversation with futurist ends up in 2 Peter 3. Let me show what elements are.. 

[4747 (stoixeíon) refers to "the rudiments with which mankind . . . were indoctrinated (before the time of Christ), i.e. the elements of religious training or the ceremonial precepts common alike to the worship of Jews and of Gentiles" (J. Thayer)

Now, I believe those elements have indeed been burned with fervent heat.

So where's the biblical evidence that the cosmos will be destroyed?


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 29, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> It is very difficult to use language, which God ordained to be used by temporal creatures, to communicate something that is not temporal.  In Eph. 3:21 Paul wanted to communicate the limits of the reign of God within which he, Paul, wished to pray for God's glory.  Above I said that "the age is the unity of time"; that is: "the age" consists of all of the subdivisions of time ("ages"), which occur with the limits of the creation.  Paul here wanted to not limit his prayer for God's glory to that which occurs within creation, but expand it beyond the limiting factor of creation.  Our best English word for that is probably eternity, but defining eternity without using the limiting concept of time proves quite difficult.  Hobbs phrase "age without end" is a worth attempt, but still used time (age) to describe that which is not time.  Paul used a somewhat different phrase,  _αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων_ which translates to "age of the ages".  Kinda like "(the age)s"; plural of that which includes all temporal ages, or maybe "all of the alls".  For now we are stuck with "eternity", a concept which we are not equipped to adequately define.
> 
> Hey, to describe the "world" in which God exists, we would have to be there, right.  Praise God, He has promised.



I have a french bible here were it is written ( translated) as follows:

" for all the ages and all centuries".


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 29, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Hummer. As for eternity I agree. Does this translation not better show your point? Eternity= forever and ever.
> 
> Berean Study Bible
> to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.



Not really, "forever and ever" again refers to time to describe what is not time.  It's like me trying to use my earthbound knowledge and experience to describe or define an "area" beyond the edge of the universe.  The concept of area doesn't even apply.  We must accept that we are inadequate while simultaneously acknowledging the existence.

As this relates to scripture, the inspired writers were in the same boat.  The writers of the autographs and the translators are restricted to the same limits we are, so they use things like Paul's "age of the ages" or "end of the age" and "time of the end", to express the passing from this state of being to a new and totally different state of being. Descriptions of the New Jerusalem and heaven are similarly inadequate but necessarily sufficient.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 29, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Let me plainly say this. I know of nowhere in scripture that says the cosmos will end.
> 
> Usually this conversation with futurist ends up in 2 Peter 3. Let me show what elements are..
> 
> ...



2 Corinthians 4:18

18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

The cosmos would be part of that which is seen,(temporal),don't you think?
Unless you can figure out a way to convince me that I don't really see it.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 29, 2016)

welderguy said:


> 2 Corinthians 4:18
> 
> 18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
> 
> ...



Everything you look around and see is temporal, your body is temporal, the building you are in is temporal, but that which is spiritual is eternal....that doesn't mean all you see will be destroyed, but all things on earth have a lifespan.. Always will. Seek that which is heavenly.


----------



## Israel (Aug 29, 2016)

And: “In the beginning, Lord, You laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; They will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed; but You remain the same, and Your years will never end.”…


----------



## welderguy (Aug 29, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Everything you look around and see is temporal, your body is temporal, the building you are in is temporal, but that which is spiritual is eternal....that doesn't mean all you see will be destroyed, but all things on earth have a lifespan.. Always will. Seek that which is heavenly.



Not just things ON the earth but also the earth itself and everything else that we SEE.(keyword-SEE).


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 29, 2016)

Israel said:


> And: “In the beginning, Lord, You laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; They will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed; but You remain the same, and Your years will never end.”…



Yes, the old covenant was passing away and the eternal new covenant was coming in and would never end.

Isa. 51:15-16

Look also at Isa. 65:17 & 66:22 Incidentally in Isaiah 65 God had predicted that the new creation ( the new covenant and new Jerusalem) would come when Israel had filled the measure of her sin and was destroyed v.7. And when did that transpire?  I don't have to say it do I?


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 29, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Not just things ON the earth but also the earth itself and everything else that we SEE.(keyword-SEE).



That's not scriptural welder..at least from what I have seen or has been presented so far.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 29, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> That's not scriptural welder..at least from what I have seen or has been presented so far.



It's straight from 2 Cor.4:18.
How is it not scriptural?

Give me scripture that would say otherwise and we will get the whole sense of the matter.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 29, 2016)

welderguy said:


> It's straight from 2 Cor.4:18.
> How is it not scriptural?
> 
> Give me scripture that would say otherwise and we will get the whole sense of the matter.



Is this the only place you think speaks of the end of the kosmos? There's one more that appears to, but I want to make sure we get it  all out now.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 29, 2016)

OK, are there any verses stating God will not destroy the earth?

Genesis 9:13
I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.

Genesis 9:17
So God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth."

I know this is pertaining to only water, but was the covenant between God and the Earth or God and the life on the Earth? 

Did God destroy the Earth with a flood or the life on the Earth with a flood?
Both are still here. Why? What did the flood destroy?   

Maybe earth or world means "life."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 29, 2016)

Genesis 8:21-22
The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. 22"While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease."

"while the earth remains?" Well eventually even time will destroy it even if God doesn't do it with intervention.

I still don't understand why God says he destroyed every living thing when we're still here.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 29, 2016)

The Ark represents Jesus. God destroyed everything, the whole earth
except those on the Ark. 
Maybe the Ark(Jesus) is God's way of saying that he will no longer destroy everything. Out of everything will be those saved by Jesus.(ark)


----------



## welderguy (Aug 29, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Is this the only place you think speaks of the end of the kosmos? There's one more that appears to, but I want to make sure we get it  all out now.



No.There are several.

Keeping with the same line of thought as 2 Cor.4:18 is Rom.8:18-25.
Although I know from previous discussions that you've got your preterist "explaination" for that too,which I don't agree with.(dead end)

But,if you can see the correlation of the spiritual/temporal, the things seen/things not seen, creature(us)/creation(cosmos) in both texts, then you should see that they support each other in context.
(note key thoughts in caps)

18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this PRESENT time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which SHALL be revealed in us.

19 For the earnest expectation of the CREATURE waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

21 Because the CREATURE itself also SHALL BE DELIVERED from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

22 For we know that the WHOLE CREATION groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

23 And NOT ONLY THEY, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is SEEN is not hope: for what a man SEETH, why doth he yet hope for?

25 BUT IF WE HOPE FOR THAT WE SEE NOT, THEN DO WE WITH PATIENCE WAIT FOR IT.

Verse 25 goes hand in hand with 2 Cor.4:18, but Paul elaborates on it more thoroughly with much more context.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 29, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Let me plainly say this. I know of nowhere in scripture that says the cosmos will end.
> 
> Usually this conversation with futurist ends up in 2 Peter 3. Let me show what elements are..
> 
> ...



This is from Strongs describing ELEMENTS (2 Pet.3)

Why would you go all the way down to (d) for your definition and skip over (1), (a),(b),and (c)?

    1) any first thing, from which the others belonging to some series or composite whole take their rise, an element, first principal
    1a) the letters of the alphabet as the elements of speech, not however the written characters, but the spoken sounds
    1b) the elements from which all things have come, the material causes of the universe
    1c) the heavenly bodies, either as parts of the heavens or (as others think) because in them the elements of man, life and destiny were supposed to reside
    1d) the elements, rudiments, primary and fundamental principles of any art, science, or discipline
    1d1) i.e. of mathematics, Euclid's geometry


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 29, 2016)

The creature in Romans 8 is Israel. Their expectation is in earnest.
The creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly. The CREATURE itself also SHALL BE DELIVERED.
NOT ONLY THEY(Israel), but ourselves also.(Gentiles)

The creation looks forward to the day when it will join God's children in glorious freedom from death and decay.

We wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our body. (adoption into Israel)

We eagerly wait for our adoption, the freeing of our body.

Adoption is the redemption of our body. 

"Our body" Church? Gentiles? True Children of God? Christ?


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 30, 2016)

welderguy said:


> This is from Strongs describing ELEMENTS (2 Pet.3)
> 
> Why would you go all the way down to (d) for your definition and skip over (1), (a),(b),and (c)?
> 
> ...



Actually, I believe that is from Thayer's Greek Definitions, the same author as quoted.  Strong's is:
στοιχεῖον
stoicheion
stoy-khi'-on
Neuter of a presumed derivative of the base of G4748; something orderly in arrangement, that is, (by implication) a serial (basal, fundamental, initial) constituent (literally), proposition (figuratively): - element, principle, rudiment.
Total KJV occurrences: 7

I believe the answer to your question is that it takes a lot of doing to be able to plainly say what you plainly want to say.  You have to take possibility over probability until you plainly have improbability.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 30, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> Actually, I believe that is from Thayer's Greek Definitions, the same author as quoted.  Strong's is:
> στοιχεῖον
> stoicheion
> stoy-khi'-on
> ...



Thanks for pointing that out Hummer.
Hobbs,sorry for the misrepresentation.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 30, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> The creature in Romans 8 is Israel. Their expectation is in earnest.
> The creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly. The CREATURE itself also SHALL BE DELIVERED.NOT ONLY THEY(Israel),but ourselves also.(Gentiles)
> 
> The creation looks forward to the day when it will join God's children in glorious freedom from death and decay.
> ...



Paul was not a Gentile.He includes himself in this statement.Your whole line of thought concerning Jew/Gentile is flawed here.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 30, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> The creature in Romans 8 is Israel.



I see that Welder beat me to it; but, I will nonetheless say that this is pure eisegesis; and even that word falls short of how totally impossible it is.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 30, 2016)

I believe the creature in Roman's 8  is ( mankind).  It is used as such here: . Mark 16:15– every creature; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Gal. 6:15, Colossians 1:23.

That being said mankind is divided into groups in this text as we and they.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 30, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Thanks for pointing that out Hummer.
> Hobbs,sorry for the misrepresentation.



No problem.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 30, 2016)

Perhaps creation in Romans 8:18-23 is the Old Testament saints,
who, under the law, were waiting or groaning in pain to be delivered from that bondage when the first fruits received the adoption of sons.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 30, 2016)

New creation which is any man in Christ vs Old creation which would be Old Testament Israel.
Both groups hoped in the promises of God. Both groups groaned in the pain of childbirth.
Creation would get delivered and so would the first fruits.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 30, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> New creation which is any man in Christ vs Old creation which would be Old Testament Israel.
> Both groups hoped in the promises of God. Both groups groaned in the pain of childbirth.
> Creation would get delivered and so would the first fruits.



Here's some work Tony Denton has done on this, just scroll down and click on roman's 8

http://www.asiteforthelord.com/id15.html


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 30, 2016)

welderguy said:


> No.There are several.



 2Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

You really need to read the entire chapter to understand this. What confuses people is the tradition taught in most churches that the New Covenant was in it's fullness. It was not. Hebrews 8:13. These first century Christians were looking around at the persecution they were under, how the Jews were living it up even after killing our Lord, but the message to the Corinthians which were also under persecution by Jews and probably some Pagans.( Jewish synagogues were throughout the land) But the message Paul is sending them is this current state of persecution is temporal..what you see around you is about to change..and what is coming is the New Covenant Church age and it is eternal...world without end, Amen!



welderguy said:


> Keeping with the same line of thought as 2 Cor.4:18 is Rom.8:18-25.
> Although I know from previous discussions that you've got your preterist "explaination" for that too,which I don't agree with.(dead end)
> 
> But,if you can see the correlation of the spiritual/temporal, the things seen/things not seen, creature(us)/creation(cosmos) in both texts, then you should see that they support each other in context.
> ...



The creature couldn't have been us, we weren't there, and the creation is not the kosmos.

 The creature is man from Adam to that present time. The creation is as Art said earlier , Israel, but it's the true Israel, the faithful. Adam, Seth, Noah, Abraham, etc. All the way up to this time, a time in which they in patience waited for hope...What was hope? 
 Acts 23:6
But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!"

So what we are left with is tradition of an end to the kosmos taught in many churches...with no scripture to back it up.

 So their world was coming to an end, the world that surrounded them, the old covenant world..but on the horizon was the new..eternal..everlasting covenant.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 30, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> 2Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
> 
> You really need to read the entire chapter to understand this. What confuses people is the tradition taught in most churches that the New Covenant was in it's fullness. It was not. Hebrews 8:13. These first century Christians were looking around at the persecution they were under, how the Jews were living it up even after killing our Lord, but the message to the Corinthians which were also under persecution by Jews and probably some Pagans.( Jewish synagogues were throughout the land) But the message Paul is sending them is this current state of persecution is temporal..what you see around you is about to change..and what is coming is the New Covenant Church age and it is eternal...world without end, Amen!
> 
> ...



1 John 2:15-17

15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

World here is kosmos.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 30, 2016)

welderguy said:


> 1 John 2:15-17
> 
> 15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
> 
> ...



 Is there any more? I would like to wrap this up as soon as possible..give me all you got.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 30, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Is there any more? I would like to wrap this up as soon as possible..give me all you got.



Haha
Yeah..I bet you would.

Some things can't be rushed.

So, what's your take on 1 John 2:15-17?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 30, 2016)

Perhaps the world and lust fading away was local;

1 John 2:18
Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

John made it clear that it was the last hour.

If it was the last hour, why is the earth(world) still here? If the earth(world) was destroyed by a flood, why is it still here?
If Jerusalem was destroyed, why is it still here?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 30, 2016)

We know that certain scriptures are depicting the last days of Jerusalem in 70AD. How do we distinguish those verses from verses describing the last days of the earth?
How do we know what verse is salvation from the fire & destruction in Jerusalem vs the fire & destruction of the earth?

If the destruction of Jerusalem is a type or mirror of a future destruction of the earth, what verses tell us of the comparison?

1 Peter 4:7
The end of all things is near. Therefore be clear minded and sober, so you can pray.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 30, 2016)

They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us.
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son.

OK, was there some group back before 70AD that left the Church and denied Jesus is the Christ?

No one who denies the Son can have the Father; whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 30, 2016)

Double fulfillment?

Matthew 24:21
For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now--and never to be equaled again.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 30, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Haha
> Yeah..I bet you would.
> 
> Some things can't be rushed.
> ...



One might ask, what of this kosmos is not of the Father? Has God not created all things? 

Here in the 16th verse we are told some things of the kosmos are not of the Father, but from the kosmou itself. I bet that lifts a brow on the eye of many...it does mine.

16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. 17 The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.

So..how can this be? Maybe the answer can be found in the different meanings of kosmos?

Strongs definition

the world, universe; worldly affairs; the inhabitants of the world; adornment.

Which of these fits best? It couldn't literally be world or universe...unless you want to say not all of the world or universe is of the Father....Do you?


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 30, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Double fulfillment?
> 
> Matthew 24:21
> For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now--and never to be equaled again.



 Can't be..can it?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 31, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> One might ask, what of this kosmos is not of the Father? Has God not created all things?
> 
> Here in the 16th verse we are told some things of the kosmos are not of the Father, but from the kosmou itself. I bet that lifts a brow on the eye of many...it does mine.
> 
> ...



Don't miss the forest for the trees here.
It is simply saying that not only will the physical cosmos be destroyed,but all un-Godliness,(that is not of God), along with it.

And I have to ask you, has all un-Godliness been destroyed yet? I don't think so.When I turned on the news a few minutes ago,they said 4 people were murdered just last night.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 31, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Don't miss the forest for the trees here.
> It is simply saying that not only will the physical cosmos be destroyed,but all un-Godliness,(that is not of God), along with it.
> 
> And I have to ask you, has all un-Godliness been destroyed yet? I don't think so.When I turned on the news a few minutes ago,they said 4 people were murdered just last night.



All un-Godliness passing away is not in this text. The kosmos will always have un-Godliness in it.

Red.22: 10 And he *said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. 11 Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.”

12 “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man [g]according to what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 31, 2016)

The world is passing away.

 Interesting present tense statement by John.

They were in the last hour. V.18 They knew this for they were told in the last hour the anti Christ would come. That Old Covenant world was about to meet it's demise.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 31, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> All un-Godliness passing away is not in this text. The kosmos will always have un-Godliness in it.
> 
> Red.22: 10 And he *said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. 11 Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.”
> 
> ...



So, to boil it all down, are you telling us that planet earth will continue in existence forever along with its human inhabitants and their lusts and pride?


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 31, 2016)

welderguy said:


> So, to boil it all down, are you telling us that planet earth will continue in existence forever along with its human inhabitants and their lusts and pride?



I'm saying the Bible doesn't tell us of an end to the planet. Or to the current New Covenant relationship between man and God. Will the planet fade away..or become inhabitable someday? Scientists say so..could man find another planet to live on? It's possible, but if mankind does move off this planet to somewhere else Jesus will still be King of Kings and Lord of Lords .


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 31, 2016)

I could possibly see the earth being destroyed one day but not the entire universe.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 31, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> The creature in Romans 8 is Israel. Their expectation is in earnest.
> The creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly. The CREATURE itself also SHALL BE DELIVERED.
> NOT ONLY THEY(Israel), but ourselves also.(Gentiles)
> 
> ...



Possible help? 
Pure coincidence that I was at this point in this book, right?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 31, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> I'm saying the Bible doesn't tell us of an end to the planet. Or to the current New Covenant relationship between man and God. Will the planet fade away..or become inhabitable someday? Scientists say so..could man find another planet to live on? It's possible, but if mankind does move off this planet to somewhere else Jesus will still be King of Kings and Lord of Lords .



Hobbs,I really enjoy conversing with you but you have some very strange ideas.
Just when I think we've reached the limit of our disagreements,you unload another pile on me.

Oh btw,you don't have to worry about us having to go to another planet to live,because Jesus prayed this for His people:
.
John17:15
15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 31, 2016)

"For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope."

Still who or what is this creature or creation?

the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage"

It sounds just like Romans 11 to me;

"God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day."

"And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 31, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Hobbs,I really enjoy conversing with you but you have some very strange ideas.
> Just when I think we've reached the limit of our disagreements,you unload another pile on me.
> 
> Oh btw,you don't have to worry about us having to go to another planet to live,because Jesus prayed this for His people:
> ...



Welder, I just used the leaving Earth as an example that's possible..We don't know what the future holds for us, other than Jesus' present reign as King of Kings and Lord of Lords is an eternal reign. 

I understand these ( ideas) may seem strange, trust me, how any man can read scripture and see an end in our future is very strange to me...matter of fact,  spend about thirty minutes listening to the very popular Rev. John Hagee. He's got some of the strangest ideas I've ever heard and he not only twists scripture he mutilates it...yet his eschatology is accepted.  Nuts.

Here's some guys from way back that share some of my strange ideas.

100: The Odes of Solomon Â â€œBecause He is my Sun and His rays have lifted me up and His light hath dispelled all darkness from my face. In Him I HAVE acquired eyes and HAVE SEEN His HOLY DAY:Â  The way of error I have left, and have walked towards Him and have received salvation from Him, without grudging. I HAVE put on INCORRUPTION through His name: and have put off corruption by His grace. DEATH HAS BEEN DESTROYED before my face: and Sheol bath been abolished by my wordâ€�.

150: Melito â€“ Homily of the Pascha â€œWho will contend against me? Let him stand before me. It is I who delivered the condemned. It is I who gave life to the dead. It is I who RAISED UP THE BURIED. Who will argue with me? It is I, says Christ, who DESTROYED DEATH. It is I who triumphed over the enemy, and having trod down Hades, and bound the Strong Man, and HAVE SNATCHED UP MANKIND TO THE HEIGHTS OF HEAVEN.â€�

175: Irenaeus â€“ Against Heresies â€œthe temple constructed of stones was indeed then rebuilt (for as yet that law was observed which had been made upon tables of stone), yet no new covenant was given, but they used the Mosaic law until the coming of the Lord; but from the Lordâ€™s advent, the new covenant which brings back peace, and the law which gives life, has gone forth over the whole earth, as the prophets said: â€œFor out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem ; and He shall rebuke many people; and they shall break down their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruninghooks, and they shall no longer learn to fight.â€�


----------



## welderguy (Aug 31, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Welder, I just used the leaving Earth as an example that's possible..We don't know what the future holds for us, other than Jesus' present reign as King of Kings and Lord of Lords is an eternal reign.
> 
> I understand these ( ideas) may seem strange, trust me, how any man can read scripture and see an end in our future is very strange to me...matter of fact,  spend about thirty minutes listening to the very popular Rev. John Hagee. He's got some of the strangest ideas I've ever heard and he not only twists scripture he mutilates it...yet his eschatology is accepted.  Nuts.
> 
> ...



It's not an end to our future.It's really the beginning to an eternal future.
We have only the earnest of our inheritance now,but our future has promise of the full inheritence.We are joint heirs with Jesus.Let that sink down between your ears.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 31, 2016)

If one of the elect dies before this eternal future begins, where does he go to wait for it to begin?


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 31, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> If one of the elect dies before this eternal future begins, where does he go to wait for it to begin?



Eternity begins?


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 31, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> Eternity begins?



For people that were saved other than by the cross ..no, for us that are saved by the blood shed at the cross..yes.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 31, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> Eternity begins?



Welderguy quote;
"It's not an end to our future. It's really the beginning to an eternal future."

The future coming of Jesus or when Jesus returns could signify some type of change in dead saints that will be the beginning of their eternal future along we the living saints.

The dead saints are somewhere as spirits but when Christ returns they will see him as he is and become like him.

1 John 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

Our resurrection; our new beginning, beginning of our eternal future, our new life? Spiritual or Physical?

Must the dead saints wait?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 31, 2016)

1 John 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

That sounds pretty deep. Will we see him as a human, spirit, or God?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 31, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Welderguy quote;
> "It's not an end to our future. It's really the beginning to an eternal future."
> 
> The future coming of Jesus or when Jesus returns could signify some type of change in dead saints that will be the beginning of their eternal future along we the living saints.
> ...



Let me tell you my thoughts on this.
Now mind you,these are only my thoughts.I don't have anything to back this up so you can toss it if you like.

I think,when we die,we instantly leave the bondage of time and enter into the realm of eternity(where there's no time and everything s present).
Because of this,there is no waiting.We are immediately in our glorified bodies in the presence of God.All the people ever created will be there(separated into the sheep and goats),standing before the judgement seat.The books will be opened and all will be judged.After this,each will either hear "come ye blest of my Father,inherit the kingdom prepared from before the foundation of the world"...or "depart from Me,for I never knew you."

Again,this is just my opinion so....


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 31, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Let me tell you my thoughts on this.
> Now mind you,these are only my thoughts.I don't have anything to back this up so you can toss it if you like.
> 
> I think,when we die,we instantly leave the bondage of time and enter into the realm of eternity(where there's no time and everything s present).
> ...



Welder..why would you face judgment upon death, if you were saved before the world was created? How can you make sense of that?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 31, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Welder..why would you face judgment upon death, if you were saved before the world was created? How can you make sense of that?



Because "it is appointed unto man once to die,then the judgement."
Mind you,I will be pronounced sinless.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 31, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Because "it is appointed unto man once to die,then the judgement."
> Mind you,I will be pronounced sinless.



But you don't see it as an individual judgement when you die? There's still a futuristic Judgement Day such as the 2nd coming but when you die time is no more? So at the moment you die everything in the future happens?

I'm not knocking it, I've just never heard anyone explain it that way. I guess it's better than soul sleep.

Do you experience the 2nd coming the minute you die?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 31, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> But you don't see it as an individual judgement when you die? There's still a futuristic Judgement Day such as the 2nd coming but when you die time is no more? So at the moment you die everything in the future happens?
> 
> I'm not knocking it, I've just never heard anyone explain it that way. I guess it's better than soul sleep.
> 
> Do you experience the 2nd coming the minute you die?



That's how I imagine it.
Because "absent from the body is present with the Lord."Paul said.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 31, 2016)

“And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Daniel 12:2

“Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth — those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.” John 5:28–29

“Martha said to Him, “”I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”” John 11:24

If it all happens out of time the instant you die? If time continues for the rest of us until the last day? In that instant of death, will you return for the once in time last day resurrection and once in time Judgement Day?

It's great that you will show up in Heaven already in your glorified body passing through a time warp into a "no more time existence." 
But it seems like you would still need to experience the 2nd coming, Judgement Day, and bodily resurrection in time.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 31, 2016)

The question then is;
Will time end for us individually when we die, or will we all experience the end of time together the instant it ends? Both the quick and the dead? Both sinners and saints?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 31, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Daniel 12:2
> 
> “Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth — those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.” John 5:28–29
> 
> ...



I can only speculate,but I believe I will see Jesus at the instant I die and I will be changed in the twinkling of an eye into my resurrected state.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 31, 2016)

welderguy said:


> I can only speculate,but I believe I will see Jesus at the instant I die and I will be changed in the twinkling of an eye into my resurrected state.



Me too!

1 John 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ is revealed, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

I'm not sure what "state" I'll be in other than I'll be "like him."

1 Corinthians 15:49
And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

I'm pretty sure this is way deeper than an image of an earthly man. I already have that image.

This image we will become may surprise us. When we finally see Jesus as he is. It's beyond speculation.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 31, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Me too!
> 
> 1 John 3:2
> Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ is revealed, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
> ...



One thing is certain.It will be better than we can imagine.

1 Corinthians 2:9

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.


----------



## hummerpoo (Sep 1, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Welderguy quote;
> "It's not an end to our future. It's really the beginning to an eternal future."
> 
> The future coming of Jesus or when Jesus returns could signify some type of change in dead saints that will be the beginning of their eternal future along we the living saints.
> ...



You and Welder have probably done better than I could.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 1, 2016)

1 Peter 4:17-18

17 For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 And if it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved, what will become of the godless man and the sinner?

Proverbs 11:31 If the righteous will be rewarded in the earth, How much more the wicked and the sinner!


----------



## hummerpoo (Sep 1, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> For people that were saved other than by the cross ..no, for us that are saved by the blood shed at the cross..yes.



I read some of your links and found them deficient.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 1, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> You and Welder have probably done better than I could.



Hummer, I usually agree with most everything you post,but this one is waaaay off.
(speaking for myself,not Art)


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 1, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> I read some of your links and found them deficient.



? cool.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 1, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> 1 Peter 4:17-18
> 
> 17 For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 And if it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved, what will become of the godless man and the sinner?!



Kinda like in 1 Cor. when Paul said "being absent I have already judged"?



hobbs27 said:


> Proverbs 11:31 If the righteous will be rewarded in the earth, How much more the wicked and the sinner!



Kinda like "you will reap what you sow"?


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 1, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Kinda like in 1 Cor. when Paul said "being absent I have already judged"?



Not at all. Nothing even remotely like it.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 1, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Not at all. Nothing even remotely like it.



What about this:

Matt.18:15-17

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 1, 2016)

welderguy said:


> What about this:
> 
> Matt.18:15-17
> 
> ...




The judgment in 1Peter4 is of God.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 1, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> The judgment in 1Peter4 is of God.



How do you know?


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 1, 2016)

welderguy said:


> How do you know?



It's a long story, but to make it short.

I know because of verse 5, and verse 7.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 1, 2016)

1Peter4:5 but they will give account to [ Him ]
[ who is ready ] to[ judge the living and the dead].

1Peter 4:7[ The end of all things ] [ is near] ; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer. 

1Peter4: 17 For [it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God]; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?


----------



## hummerpoo (Sep 2, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> 1Peter4:5 but they will give account to [ Him ]
> [ who is ready ] to[ judge the living and the dead].
> 
> 1Peter 4:7[ The end of all things ] [ is near] ; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer.
> ...



Thank you for helping me to see how really stupid I have been in not recognizing how dangerous this teaching truly is; in that, each time Jesus, Paul, Peter, or even C.S. Lewis teaches us of the need to, and how to, be spiritually prepared at all times for our physical death, you tell us that we are being told that the Jews needed to be prepared for the end of the “Jewish dispensation”.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 2, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> Thank you for helping me to see how really stupid I have been in not recognizing how dangerous this teaching truly is; in that, each time Jesus, Paul, Peter, or even C.S. Lewis teaches us of the need to, and how to, be spiritually prepared at all times for our physical death, you tell us that we are being told that the Jews needed to be prepared for the end of the “Jewish dispensation”.



I wouldn't say " Jewish dispensation", but you're welcome. I could tell you seem to struggle with time statements.


----------



## hummerpoo (Sep 2, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> I wouldn't say " Jewish dispensation", but you're welcome. I could tell you seem to struggle with time statements.



You couldn't be more wrong about my struggle.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 2, 2016)

Is the struggle with individual physical death or the future end of time/2nd coming?

Are the warnings for our physical death or the 2nd coming?

Which one does said scripture tell us to prepare for?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 2, 2016)

1 John 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

This appearance or revealing, will it be at your physical death or when Christ returns?

Which event does scripture tell us to be ready for?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 2, 2016)

Matthew 24:44
So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

70AD? Our individual death? Future 2nd coming? 

Perhaps all three? When you die, Jesus is coming.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 2, 2016)

MacLaren's Expositions
There are many comings of the Son of Man before His final coming for final judgment, and the nearer and smaller ones are themselves prophecies.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
Mt 24:1-51. Christ's Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem, and Warnings Suggested by It to Prepare for His Second Coming. ( = Mr 13:1-37; Lu 21:5-36).

Gill's Exposition
for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come; to avenge himself of the unbelieving Jews, and fulfil what he in person, and by his apostles, had predicted and warned them of: though I will not deny, but that what follows may be much better accommodated and applied to the second coming of Christ, and the last judgment,

Can we assume as Gill that this applies to both 70AD and a future second coming?

Why is our individual deaths  rarely mentioned when discussing these two comings of the Lord?


----------



## hummerpoo (Sep 2, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Which one does said scripture tell us to prepare for?





Artfuldodger said:


> 1 John 3:2
> Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
> 
> This appearance or revealing, will it be at your physical death or when Christ returns?
> ...



Think about it; haven't you been told that only God knows the answer to that question.  Some will have one answer and some the other.  And, boy, you can really get EVERYTHING messed up when you think you know.  You have to start skipping parts of scripture, redefining words, crossing literal and literary, crossing history with prophecy, it just never ends — well, actually it does.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 2, 2016)

Then we don't really know if we'll see Jesus as he is when we die, we don't really know if Jesus returned in 70AD, and we don't really know if he will return again.

We'll just have to hope we'll see Jesus as he is when we die. Perhaps in our death it will be the coming/revealing of Jesus.


----------



## hummerpoo (Sep 2, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Then we don't really know if we'll see Jesus as he is when we die, we don't really know if Jesus returned in 70AD, and we don't really know if he will return again.
> 
> We'll just have to hope we'll see Jesus as he is when we die. Perhaps in our death it will be the coming/revealing of Jesus.



I have not a clue how those conclusions are derived.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 2, 2016)

Matthew 24:34 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

To whom was Jesus speaking? What generation was He speaking? It's simple language..what makes it so hard is presuppositions.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 2, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> I have not a clue how those conclusions are derived.



From reading Matthew's account in chapter 24. It reads like an account of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Then from there depending on the individual reading it changes at some point to mean the destruction of the whole world at a future date.

Then when we add to that account that we will see Jesus as he is when he is revealed to us at our individual physical death.

That's three different comings/revealings. Therefore we can't truly say when we will see Jesus as he is and become like him.

Unless it plays out like Welderguy suggest that when we die as individuals, time ends. Time ends for the individual, not the world. This gives the individual his second coming/judgement and he finally sees Jesus as he is and becomes like him.

That scenario is similar to Jesus and the Cross in the Reformed view. Even though the Cross was a moment in time, it's affect was beyond time to include even before it happened. It's basically the same concept used for one's physical death.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 2, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> From reading Matthew's account in chapter 24. It reads like an account of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Then from there depending on the individual reading it changes at some point to mean the destruction of the whole world at a future date.
> .



Is it possible or probable that you would come away from that text, believing that it's about two separate events if you had not been told that?

The problem is simple, admitting it and allowing God's truth to resonate in your soul..now that's the tough one.


----------



## hummerpoo (Sep 2, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> From reading Matthew's account in chapter 24. It reads like an account of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Then from there depending on the individual reading it changes at some point to mean the destruction of the whole world at a future date.
> 
> Then when we add to that account that we will see Jesus as he is when he is revealed to us at our individual physical death.
> 
> ...



You seem surprised that God, who does not change, would fulfill his purpose using methods* which reveal similarities to His People.

*"using methods" is a very bad description of His work, but I can't think of a good one right now.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 2, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Is it possible or probable that you would come away from that text, believing that it's about two separate events if you had not been told that?
> 
> The problem is simple, admitting it and allowing God's truth to resonate in your soul..now that's the tough one.



If I had not been told before I read it that it was two events, I would have come away with believing it was only one event.

What's weird is the people who read it and only see one event, a future one. I mean if you want to believe it's also related to a future even fine, but how can one not see the soon to come destruction of Jerusalem?

It may be a mirror or whatever word you want to use but it's definitely about the soon to come destruction of Jerusalem.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 2, 2016)

2Thessalonians 1:16 For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

What if this letter was actually to the people it was addressed to?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 2, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> 2Thessalonians 1:16 For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
> 
> What if this letter was actually to the people it was addressed to?



It sounds to be imminent. Why inform this group of the imminent destruction of Jerusalem? How did it affect them? How did it affect the world?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 2, 2016)

In reference to this imminent destruction, who was the man of lawlessness:

2 Thessalonians 2:3
Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

2 Thessalonians 2:8
And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of His mouth and abolish by the majesty of His arrival.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 2, 2016)

Is the man of lawlessness the anti-christ revealed at the second coming?

Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:18-22

By this you know the spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
1 John 4:2-3

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
2 John 7

If we are going to say that the second coming has already happened, then we must somehow explain this antichrist or man of lawlessness.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 2, 2016)

2 Thessalonians 2:4 
He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

From John;
"Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us;"

Is there any account of who this was? Antichrist, not antichrists?
He set himself up in God's temple and claimed to be God?


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 3, 2016)

Art. I can speculate who this man of lawlessness was, but why do that when I can show in scripture that he was already at work when Paul wrote this letter? That should prove that it was happening then.

2Thessalonians 2:7
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 3, 2016)

Where was the Church of Thessalonica? Why was Paul warning them of the destruction in Jerusalem? How did the destruction of Jerusalem affect Thessalonica?


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 3, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Where was the Church of Thessalonica? Why was Paul warning them of the destruction in Jerusalem? How did the destruction of Jerusalem affect Thessalonica?



The small band of Christians ( the elect) were persecuted by Jew's everywhere. Synagogues were in these same places outside of Israel.
Remember Saul persecuted the churches all around.

Christians were saying, ( we are the children of God and rightful heirs of Abraham) Jew's said, (no we are the children of God and rightful heirs of Abraham).  70 ad settled that dispute once and for all.
 It was the end of the old covenant age.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 3, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> The small band of Christians ( the elect) were persecuted by Jew's everywhere. Synagogues were in these same places outside of Israel.
> Remember Saul persecuted the churches all around.
> 
> Christians were saying, ( we are the children of God and rightful heirs of Abraham) Jew's said, (no we are the children of God and rightful heirs of Abraham).  70 ad settled that dispute once and for all.
> It was the end of the old covenant age.



OK, so it's more of just letting the Thessalonians know of this coming destruction and judgement, not a warning to them.
That relief was on the way. That Christ would come soon to judge the one's tormenting them. That this destruction would be in the form of fire.

So did God destroy these bands of Jews living in the other lands such as Thessalonica or did destroying Jerusalem end their base camp so to speak. With Jerusalem destroyed maybe the smaller bands of Jews, giving the Thessalonians, grief just gave up, or did God's judgment destroy them too?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 3, 2016)

8in blazing fire. He will inflict vengeance on those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will suffer the penalty of eternal destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His might, 

So in 70AD, God using blazing fire destroyed Jerusalem.

I understand that. Show me in scripture how this destruction took out the rest of the harassing Jews, the individuals that didn't know God, and people that did not obey the Gospel.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 3, 2016)

Art, it was about timing. Pentecost had brought Jew's to Jerusalem on a pilgrimage. Not only that but the Roman's started siege of the northern cities. As those cities fell the ones that escaped went to Jerusalem. By the time the Roman army made it to Jerusalem they had almost all the Jew's in the world surrounded.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 3, 2016)

Some Jew's for a little time were allowed in and out of the city for merchandise and supplies. These Jew's were given a mark.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 3, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> 8in blazing fire. He will inflict vengeance on those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will suffer the penalty of eternal destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His might,
> 
> So in 70AD, God using blazing fire destroyed Jerusalem.
> 
> I understand that. Show me in scripture how this destruction took out the rest of the harassing Jews, the individuals that didn't know God, and people that did not obey the Gospel.



There is no post 70ad scripture.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 4, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> There is no post 70ad scripture.



We don't know this for certain.The book of Jude has many different opinions.

Regardless of the time of origin,prophecy is not limited by time.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 4, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Regardless of the time of origin,prophecy is not limited by time.



Can you elaborate on this please?


----------



## welderguy (Sep 4, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Can you elaborate on this please?



I'm just saying,even if you could prove that every single text about end times was written before 70AD,it wouldn't prove they all were written exclusively ABOUT pre-70AD.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 4, 2016)

welderguy said:


> I'm just saying,even if you could prove that every single text about end times was written before 70AD,it wouldn't prove they all were written exclusively ABOUT pre-70AD.



OK, thanks. I agree, that was not the point I was making by showing all scripture was written before 70ad.

Art had asked for me to show in scripture how the destruction had taken out certain groups. My response is there is no post 70ad scripture...and even if there is, there's no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem to point to.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 4, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> There is no post 70ad scripture.



Is it a Preterist view or just your view that God controlled all of the events from Adam to the destruction of Jerusalem? That predestination ended in 70AD and free will came into play?

If in 70AD, all was fulfilled, God no longer needed to write the story. The story was finished.

Now with the story finished, God could turn the earth and man over to free will. No longer to intervene.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 4, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> OK, thanks. I agree, that was not the point I was making by showing all scripture was written before 70ad.
> 
> Art had asked for me to show in scripture how the destruction had taken out certain groups. My response is there is no post 70ad scripture...and even if there is, there's no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem to point to.



I think you answered how God took care of the certain groups I was asking about. I was asking about the various bands of Jews harassing the Christians.
I didn't know they had made it back to Jerusalem before the destruction.

In Matthew the Christians are warned to get out of Jerusalem, correct?


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 4, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think you answered how God took care of the certain groups I was asking about. I was asking about the various bands of Jews harassing the Christians.
> I didn't know they had made it back to Jerusalem before the destruction.
> 
> In Matthew the Christians are warned to get out of Jerusalem, correct?



Yes, the signs given in Matthew 24 was so those people would leave..they did.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 4, 2016)

I became free in 70AD!


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 4, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Is it a Preterist view or just your view that God controlled all of the events from Adam to the destruction of Jerusalem? That predestination ended in 70AD and free will came into play?
> 
> If in 70AD, all was fulfilled, God no longer needed to write the story. The story was finished.
> 
> Now with the story finished, God could turn the earth and man over to free will. No longer to intervene.



Preterist are divided, especially as of late with a sudden increase of reformist entering. 

R.C.Sproul has unintentionally opened a flood gate into full preterism by accepting Matthew 24 is fulfilled. Once people realize this and see it in other places it doesn't take long to accept all is fulfilled...but these people are slow to give up on predestination. Just as CoC members are slow to give up on water Baptism being necessary for salvation, but eventually the scripture resonates and they realize their error.

Now for me, predestination was only about the first century believers. Not folks before or folks after. They were predestined to be co- heirs of Abraham's inheritance, with Jesus, through their faith. It was predetermined that they would establish the New Covenant Kingdom with Christ as their King. The New Jerusalem, which is spiritual.

For us to enter that city today, we must answer the call going out from the Spirit and the already established Bride..the church or Kingdom, ie. New Jerusalem.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 4, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Now for me, predestination was only about the first century believers. Not folks before or folks after. They were predestined to be co- heirs of Abraham's inheritance, with Jesus, through their faith. It was predetermined that they would establish the New Covenant Kingdom with Christ as their King. The New Jerusalem, which is spiritual.



Hard to picture everything being random until God sent his Son. Then from that point until 70AD God predestines. Then from that point it's back to free will.

Romans 9:16-18
So then, it does not depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.

Isn't Paul telling us his plan during the birth of Jesus until his return in 70AD, was the same as when Pharaoh lived?

I can see free will starting at 70AD, but not before. It was God's story from Adam until Christ returned in 70AD.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 4, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> There is no post 70ad scripture.



This is the spider web that bears the one ton load of preterism.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 4, 2016)

In Romans 9 God raised Pharoah up for a purpose. Later God sends his Son for a purpose. Later his Son dies on a Cross for God's purpose.

Romans 11 tells us God chooses/elects a Remnant for a purpose and hardens the rest of Israel for a purpose.

In 70AD God has the Romans destroy Jerusalem for his purpose.

Now perhaps his story does end at that point in time but he was in total control up and until all was finished.

Maybe now the earth is just spinning around the sun until the sun burns out or the earth gets hit by a meteor. Plants, animals, and viruses continue to randomly evolve. Rivers flood and hurricanes destroy. Mosquitoes change as to what diseases they carry.
STD's randomly mutate. Cars randomly run in to each other.
Light bulbs randomly burn out.

But God's plan ended in 70AD. We're now on our own, with no intervention. Intervention would be predestination.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 4, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Hard to picture everything being random until God sent his Son. Then from that point until 70AD God predestines. Then from that point it's back to free will.
> 
> Romans 9:16-18
> So then, it does not depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.
> ...



Salvation ..the gift of eternal life was not available until Christ made a way. Old Covenant saints did not and could not receive eternal life until Christ atoned their sin so they could be in the presence of God. 

 This is why their souls were held in Hades awaiting the judgment seat of Christ. This is also why there was a need of a resurrection of the dead.
 There is only one way to the Father. Always have been, always will be.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 4, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> In Romans 9 God raised Pharoah up for a purpose. Later God sends his Son for a purpose. Later his Son dies on a Cross for God's purpose.
> 
> Romans 11 tells us God chooses/elects a Remnant for a purpose and hardens the rest of Israel for a purpose.
> 
> ...



God's plan began In 70 ad..up until that time everything was a type or shadow.


----------



## hummerpoo (Sep 4, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> �� cool.




Cool is not a term I would use.

http://planetpreterist.com/content/e...again” 

Anyone who reads the linked Olliff essay, based on an analysis of John 3:1-16, and blindly accepts it, has accepted a lie (which characterization I base on the fact that one cannot know enough to deceive without also knowing enough to tell the truth)

I will not cover much, just enough to get the flavor.  About a page down is this paragraph:

“To begin with, we should notice an unusual point of grammar in the text. An individual came to Jesus by night to talk to him, and the whole conversation was between Jesus and this one man. But in verse 7, Jesus shifted from the singular “you” to the plural “you.” “Do not marvel that I said to you [sing.], ‘You [pl.] must be born again.’” This change would have been noticeable to Nicodemus because either the pronouns are different words (unlike the English word ‘you’) or the verbs are conjugated differently.”

That paragraph is correct except for “unusual point of grammar”, which it is not, unusual that is.  (And it is doubtful that these two would be speaking Greek, but their language is not the point.)  Earlier in the article, it was pointed out that, in vs.3, two singular pronouns are used, and for reasons I don’t understand, the author failed to point out that in vs. 5 the same two singular pronouns were used.

Quoting from the article, except for the {bracketed} inserts:
 (I didn’t check what translation it is)

…
Vs. 3  ”Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you [sing.] {soi}, unless one [sing.] {tis}  is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
…
Vs. 5   “Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you {soi}, unless one {tis}  is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
…
Vs. 7    “Do not marvel that I said to you [sing.] {soi}, ‘You [pl.] {humas} must be born again.’”
…

“Soi” is simple; second person singular: Hey, “You”.

“Humas” is a little tougher to nail down.  Strong’s, Thayer’s, and others tell us that it is the accusative case, and the form that it is plural, but a better sense of the word can be gained by reading the other uses in the NT (there are only 20; 16 of them translated “your” in KJV).  Most, if not all, of those uses relate to an identifiable set of people, i.e., ”for 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your [humas] own poets have said, 'For we are indeed his offspring.' “ In (Acts 17:28) “humas” identifies the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers in Athens.

The author of the article correctly connects “humas” with some identifiable group of people associated with Nicodemus.  (His jump from there to National Israel — “The standard Evangelical view sees this need for regeneration being directed to individuals in general. Instead, I believe that the object of rebirth being spoken of here was the nation of Israel.“ — is a jump of exegetical suicide, as we shall now see.)

What he does not do, for reasons that are apparent when we do it, is acknowledge the singular pronoun “tis” which Strong’s says is,
 “An enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object: - a (kind of), any (man, thing, thing at all), certain (thing), divers, he (every) man, one (X thing), …”
So, “tis” is any man (any one individual from the set of all men); which fits perfectly with the context of vss. 3 and 5; and is confirmed by “a man” or “any man” being used in a great variety of, and the majority of, the translations of those 2 verses, as well as the 125 other places where “tis” is translated “any”.

What we have then is:

Jesus tells Nick, “Unless any man is born from above he cannot see the Kingdom.”

Nick asks, “How can a man be physically born twice?”

Jesus replies, “I’m telling you that unless a man is born physically and spiritually he cannot enter the Kingdom.  Physical comes from physical, spiritual comes from spiritual.  Believe it, “humas” (preachers, lawyers, theologians, politicians, Jews or any group you belong to Nick) must be born spiritually.  Even those who are born from above don’t know to whom or when spiritual birth will happen.”

The plural pronoun is used to make sure Nick understands that no group with which he is identified is special; no wiggle room, God doesn’t play favorites along worldly lines; any man, no matter who he is, must be born again to enter the Kingdom. — Similar for the other uses of plural pronouns in the passage.

When the singular pronoun “tis” is included in the analysis, the whole of the linked article is exposed as the eisegesis that it is.



http://www.asiteforthelord.com/id15.html

In the linked Denton piece, of which I also only read a few paragraphs, I did not find the quote from Trench’s Synonyms (although it could be a translation of an Augustine quote found there in Latin, in which case it should have been identified as “Trench’s quotes Augustine”) of which I may have a different publication (he did not identify his publication).   And, although he is probably correct in what he says about the Greek “mello”, he chose to support it with a quote from The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia which is specifically unrelated to Romans 8, indicates an overzealousness which, when combined with the Trench’s quote, discouraged me from reading further.  Of course, that's just me.

Touching on my struggle, which you mentioned recently; my struggle is in discerning when it is beneficial to develop such information as I have related above, and when it is beneficial to post that information on this forum, once it has been developed. Prayer appreciated.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 4, 2016)

Hummer, Thanks for the response. From one as this you will not get a reply such as " cool ". One like this , makes me put down my phone and turn on the pc and grab a few books which is exactly what I will be doing tonight and in the morning on the first link you responded to.

 The other link...Tony Denton is a personal friend of mine so I don't have to wonder how he would answer. I sent him your take and here is his response. God Bless





> Firstly, Trench was quoting someone from back in the day named "Olympiodorus"; since Trench's book is all about defining words based on what they meant around the time of the NT, he does a LOT of quoting from people from those centuries ago. Secondly, what does my quote about the difference between "chronos" and "kairos" have to do with the general truth I'm putting forth in the article? That isn't even a huge/major point; it's mainly for info to help folks see more clearly the words. Thirdly, in various of my article I touch on "mello," and in each one I try to quote from a different work, like the ISBE in this one; I can't spend several paragraphs in every article I write on "mello," so since the ISBE defined it very well and agrees with others from whom I quote in other writings, etc., I simply used it. I have quite a bit of material on "mello" if a person wants to get more into it and discuss it; but, even in regard to this word, the main thrust of the article (one of my favorite passage studies, by the way) still stands and needs to be dealt with. &#55357;&#56898; Thanks for pointing folks to my works. A lot has gone into them.
> Oh, the Trench quote (as my article states) is from Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament p. 222. My copy specifically is by Baker Book House 1989, ISBN: 0-8010-8890-9?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 4, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> God's plan began In 70 ad..up until that time everything was a type or shadow.



Then every type or shadow from Adam to 70ad was predestined. God provided us the types and shadows.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 4, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Then every type or shadow from Adam to 70ad was predestined. God provided us the types and shadows.



 I'll go along with that as long as you exclude the gift of eternal life being predestined.


----------



## hummerpoo (Sep 4, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Hummer, Thanks for the response. From one as this you will not get a reply such as " cool ". One like this , makes me put down my phone and turn on the pc and grab a few books which is exactly what I will be doing tonight and in the morning on the first link you responded to.



Thanks.  Please note that I included only readily available resources which are widely accepted by folks of all theological persuasions (Strong's and Thayer's I believe; I wish I wouldn't have mentioned Thayer — His Unitarianism sometimes gets in his way.)



> The other link...Tony Denton is a personal friend of mine so I don't have to wonder how he would answer. I sent him your take and here is his response. God Bless



I thought, but was not sure, that was the name I remembered from a couple of years ago.




> Firstly, Trench was quoting someone from back in the day named "Olympiodorus"; since Trench's book is all about defining words based on what they meant around the time of the NT, he does a LOT of quoting from people from those centuries ago. Secondly, what does my quote about the difference between "chronos" and "kairos" have to do with the general truth I'm putting forth in the article? That isn't even a huge/major point; it's mainly for info to help folks see more clearly the words.



I, perhaps foolishly, assume that anything in what is written is relevant, unless noted as a rabbit trail.  Had the quote been noted as translated from Olympiodorus as quoted in Trench this reader might have maintained interest in the article.




> Thirdly, in various of my article I touch on "mello," and in each one I try to quote from a different work, like the ISBE in this one; I can't spend several paragraphs in every article I write on "mello," so since the ISBE defined it very well and agrees with others from whom I quote in other writings, etc., I simply used it. I have quite a bit of material on "mello" if a person wants to get more into it and discuss it; but, even in regard to this word, the main thrust of the article (one of my favorite passage studies, by the way) still stands and needs to be dealt with.



I said before, “although he is probably correct in what he says about the Greek “mello”, and I included the word probably because I am aware that my study of the word is insufficient.  My complaint was based on the quote from the ISBE, unless it is duplicated in another place in ISBE that I didn’t find (I did look), being from the discussion of the  word “about” as used in the Revised Version, specifically in those cases where the RV translated “mello” with the word “about”.  Romans 8:18 is not one of those cases.  Being aware that context matters, and every translation is an interpretation, a quote from, what I am sure are many other, more relevant sources would have been less discouraging.



> Thanks for pointing folks to my works. A lot has gone into them.
> Oh, the Trench quote (as my article states) is from Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament p. 222. My copy specifically is by Baker Book House 1989, ISBN: 0-8010-8890-9?



You should thank Hobbs; it’s his link.

As I suspected, I looked at Eerdman 1975, ISBN 0-8028-1520-0, but I would have identified the information had I had “Olympiodorus”.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 4, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> I'll go along with that as long as you exclude the gift of eternal life being predestined.



Before or after 70ad? Did pharaoh have a choice? The Jewish remnant? The rest of Israel being hardened until the fullness of the Gentiles came in?

Romans 11:28
As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs,

Was this election predestined?

Romans 11:30-31
Once, you Gentiles were rebels against God, but when the people of Israel rebelled against him, God was merciful to you instead. 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you.

This mystery of the Jew turning from God and his Gospel and salvation being offered to the Gentile, was it predestined or happen by randomness?

The Jew that can now receive God's mercy the Gentile received in verse 31?
Plan B perhaps?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 4, 2016)

Romans 1:32

they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death,

who having known the righteous judgment of God, that those doing such things are worthy of death,

Which men, though they knew the Law of God, how that they which commit such things are worthy of death,

and although they know the ordinance of God,

Although they know full well God's just sentence

Was it the Eskimos that knew God's ordinance and knew that breaking his Laws was a death sentence?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 4, 2016)

Romans 1:18
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

Was it the Eskimos who suppressed the truth and exchanged the truth that they knew for a lie?

Romans 1:21
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Was it the Eskimos that knew God but didn't glorify him?

Romans 1:23
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Was it the Eskimos that exchanged the glory of God for that of images of humans, birds, and animals?

What nation in the past has, traded Gods, exchanged Gods, or changed Gods?


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 5, 2016)

Hummer, while I'm looking over your concerns of Derrick Oliff essay on the eschatology of born again. I have a question, is it merely his take on (tis) that you are in disagreement with..its use with humas?
I must admit I don't know Oliff or am I familiar with his work, but what I have seen so far he came into preterism by way of the reformed movement. He seems very educated and is experienced in exegetical works of scripture. You may enjoy this piece by him while I await your answer on (tis)
http://www.reformed.org/social/inde...med.org/social/hodges_response_helminiak.html


----------



## hummerpoo (Sep 5, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Hummer, while I'm looking over your concerns of Derrick Oliff essay on the eschatology of born again. I have a question, is it merely his take on (tis) that you are in disagreement with..its use with humas?
> I must admit I don't know Oliff or am I familiar with his work, but what I have seen so far he came into preterism by way of the reformed movement. He seems very educated and is experienced in exegetical works of scripture. You may enjoy this piece by him while I await your answer on (tis)
> http://www.reformed.org/social/inde...med.org/social/hodges_response_helminiak.html



You will save me having to triple check myself if you can tell me where Olliff addressed the Greek "tis" and it's meaning, relative to vss. 3 and 5, in his essay beyond "[sing.]", which is completely insufficient.  If he did not, please read my post to which you object.

The portion of Olliff's essay in which he addressed the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus, prior to Jesus telling Nicodemus that he should have understood rebirth from the Law and the Prophets is the subject I have addressed and, for the time being, is the limit of my concern.


----------



## hummerpoo (Sep 5, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Romans 1:32
> 
> they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death,



Rm. 1:32 attributes to general revelations more than is attributed anywhere else in scripture, and certainly more than vss. 18-31.  If you look at the Vulgate you will find that it says the opposite.

You would do me, and probably others, a service if you could find a well documented source explaining how the Vulgate translation came to be; as the vulgate translation seems to me to be completely in line with vss. 18-32 and the rest of scripture.

Just one of many questions I have about scripture.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 5, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> You will save me having to triple check myself if you can tell me where Olliff addressed the Greek "tis" and it's meaning, relative to vss. 3 and 5, in his essay beyond "[sing.]", which is completely insufficient.  If he did not, please read my post to which you object.
> 
> The portion of Olliff's essay in which he addressed the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus, prior to Jesus telling Nicodemus that he should have understood rebirth from the Law and the Prophets is the subject I have addressed and, for the time being, is the limit of my concern.




Hummer, I don't see a direct reference to (tis) other than it's plural state as you said. I don't however believe that alone is reason to call the essay a lie, because the word can indeed and is indeed used in the NASB as (some) and (Some men) it does not always mean all. 

Original Word: τις, τι
Part of Speech: Indefinite Pronoun
Transliteration: tis
Phonetic Spelling: (tis)
Short Definition: any one, some one
Definition: any one, some one, a certain one or thing

NASB Translation
any (36), any man (9), any man's (2), any one (4), any way (1), any woman (1), anyone (90), anyone's (1), anyone's* (1), anyone...anything (1), anything (40), anything...anyone (1), certain (6), certain man (1), certain men (2), few (1), in any way (1), high (1), kind (1), man (10), man's (2), matter (1), no* (5), none* (3), nothing* (8), one (45), one...another (1), ones (1), others (1), person (2), several (2), some (104), some men (3), some people (1), some things (1), somebody (1), someone (27), something (15), somewhat (2), such (1), various things (1), whatever (1), whatever* (6), who (1), whoever* (4), whomever* (1).

Not to mention the extensive work done by Oliff to show the covenental birth into national Israel as the first birth.

http://beatenbrains.blogspot.com/2006/08/eschatology-of-being-born-again.html?m=1


----------



## hummerpoo (Sep 5, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Hummer, I don't see a direct reference to (tis) other than it's plural state as you said. I don't however believe that alone is reason to call the essay a lie, because the word can indeed and is indeed used in the NASB as (some) and (Some men) it does not always mean all.
> 
> Original Word: τις, τι
> Part of Speech: Indefinite Pronoun
> ...



Frankly, I'm not sure what to say.

You obviously don't understand.

You say "it's plural state as you said"
Both Olliff and I have said that "tis" is singular.
NASB's translations are singular.



> "Not to mention the extensive work done by Oliff to show the covenental birth into national Israel as the first birth."


There is nothing difficult or time consuming about ignoring the verses that say what you don't want to believe and asserting what you want it believe where it is not said.

Your own display of the NASB Concordance proves that Jesus statement is that the "need for regeneration being [is] directed to individuals in general"; which Olliff flatly denies.

Perhaps you should get some assistance from an uninterested/non-Preterist party in understanding what is being said on both sides of the issue.

If you would prefer, read my post carefully.  If there is a place where my meaning is not clear, give me a quote with the associated question.  I will try to answer. (one issue at a time, I will not respond to a bunch of stuff thrown out to see what sticks.)


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 5, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> Frankly, I'm not sure what to say.
> 
> You obviously don't understand.
> 
> ...



yes, it's singular. My mistake as I started on one thought and led to another. 

 Also as you noted previously "humas" was correctly used by Oliff , identifying Nic as a member of a certain group. This certain group needed to be regenerated, for they were in covenant with God under the old covenant but needed to be born anew into the new covenant ..regenerated from old to new. 

I think where you fail to understand Oliffs point is this. Jesus came for the lost sheep of Israel only. This is not to say Gentiles would be absent from his Kingdom, but it went to the Jew first. For only a few exceptions Jesus' only taught to Israelites, Nicodemus was born into national Israel (covenantally). So was Jesus as Don K Preston explains here: 



> Great emphasis is often placed on the "physicalness" of the virgin birth to the oversight of the Covenant relationship, or the covenant world, of that physical birth. We are in no way seeking to mitigate the uniqueness of the incarnation. We are seeking rather to place it in the Biblical framework. Jesus was born into the Old Covenant world of Israel! He was "born of a woman, born under the law" (Galatians. 4:4). He appeared in the last days of that Old World (Hebrews 1:1f; 9:26). Jesus was not born into the world of the Gentiles. He did not minister to the Gentiles, (with some notable exceptions that foreshadowed the Gentile mission), nor was he sent to the Gentiles. Jesus was, "not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). This is not to suggest the Gentile salvation was not envisioned within the work of Jesus for as Messiah his salvation would extend to all the world (Isaiah 49:6f). But Gentile salvation would be accomplished when and only when the promises to Israel were accomplished (Romans 15:8f).
> 
> Christ came into his own--the world of Israel (John 1:10-11). He never traveled outside the confines of the land of Israel. This limitation of the first birth of Jesus is very often overlooked because of the emphasis placed on the "universal" kingdom of Christ. But we should never lose sight of the fact that Jesus, "was a minister of the circumcision, for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers" (Romans 15:8). During his personal ministry Jesus sent his disciples on different "limited commissions" (Matthew 10; Luke 10), emphatically instructing them, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:5-6). Salvation, said Jesus, "is of the Jews"( John 4:22), that is, salvation to the world could only come when Israel's Messiah had fulfilled "all the law and the prophets." Thus, Jesus' first birth was limited in regard to the world into which he was born; the Old Covenant World of Israel.



 We today are never born into Israel...so we have no need to be born again..we have a need to be born period..there is only one covenant to be born into to become a child of God.


----------



## hummerpoo (Sep 5, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> yes, it's singular. My mistake as I started on one thought and led to another.
> 
> Also as you noted previously "humas" was correctly used by Oliff , identifying Nic as a member of a certain group. This certain group needed to be regenerated, for they were in covenant with God under the old covenant but needed to be born anew into the new covenant ..regenerated from old to new.
> 
> ...



I will not deal with your Preterist presuppositions.
I will deal with what Jesus and Nicodemus said.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 5, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> Rm. 1:32 attributes to general revelations more than is attributed anywhere else in scripture, and certainly more than vss. 18-31.  If you look at the Vulgate you will find that it says the opposite.
> 
> You would do me, and probably others, a service if you could find a well documented source explaining how the Vulgate translation came to be; as the vulgate translation seems to me to be completely in line with vss. 18-32 and the rest of scripture.
> 
> Just one of many questions I have about scripture.



vulgate translation of Romans 1:32;
	Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

It does say the opposite in that it says "did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death."

Something is amiss with that as about 25 other translations say the opposite.

Most translations say more or less, "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death,"

I still don't see it as being related to a general revelation. A general revelation might give someone the knowledge of a god, but the Eskimos of the time Romans was written did not know the God of Abraham's judgement, ordinance, or decree.
Whether they did or didn't know about the death sentence makes no difference in regards to a general revelation.

I say if someone knows God's judgement or decree, they know the death sentence.
I can't believe all of those translators missed the vulgate to say the complete opposite.


----------



## hummerpoo (Sep 5, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> vulgate translation of Romans 1:32;
> Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.
> 
> It does say the opposite in that it says "did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death."
> ...



The Vulgate is not considered by most who study such things to be a very reliable translation, however, 180° opposite is a whole lot of unreliable.  Thus my question, "how the Vulgate translation came to be?"


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 5, 2016)

If God is going to make his judgement known in any kind of revelation, he will also reveal that those who do such things deserve to die.

Why would God tell a whole group of people that it is against his judgment to worship other gods, exchange natural sexual relations, commit greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip, etc. if they didn't know what would happen to them if they did?

They must have known what would happen to them if they worshiped other gods because God made the "truth" plain to them.
They knew the truth and "exchanged" it for a lie.

They "exchanged" the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 5, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> The Vulgate is not considered by most who study such things to be a very reliable translation, however, 180° opposite is a whole lot of unreliable.  Thus my question, "how the Vulgate translation came to be?"



I'm not sure, I haven't looked into it. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make concerning the vulgate's wrong translation and a general revelation.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 5, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Before or after 70ad? Did pharaoh have a choice? The Jewish remnant? The rest of Israel being hardened until the fullness of the Gentiles came in?
> 
> Romans 11:28
> As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs,
> ...



No person had received eternal life until Jesus made a way. This is a major flaw in what I see predestination believers saying.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 5, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> You would do me, and probably others, a service if you could find a well documented source explaining how the Vulgate translation came to be ...



Translated by St. Jerome in the 4th century:

http://ntcanon.org/Vulgate.shtml

http://vulgate.org/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Vulgate


----------



## hummerpoo (Sep 5, 2016)

centerpin fan said:


> Translated by St. Jerome in the 4th century:
> 
> http://ntcanon.org/Vulgate.shtml
> 
> ...



Thanks CP.

This info helps to discourage me from expending too much effort in searching for the origin of a specific verse (Rm. 1:32) in the Vulgate.  As I had previously surmised, even looking for the source documents used in translating the book of Romans results in the gathering of a collection of speculations; some better than others, but still speculations.  

The question will remain with me, but little confidence that the answer will be found.


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 5, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> The Vulgate is not considered by most who study such things to be a very reliable translation, however, 180° opposite is a whole lot of unreliable.  Thus my question, "how the Vulgate translation came to be?"



 From New Advent  on Revision of Vulgate


"At the present day scholars are practically agreed as to the competence of St. Jerome for the work given him by Pope St. Damasus. He, moreover, had access to Greek and other manuscripts, even at that time considered ancient, which are not now known to exist; he could compare dozens of important texts, and he had Origen's "Hexapla" and other means of determining the value of his material, which we do not possess. It is obvious that the pure text of St. Jerome must form the basis of any critical version of the Latin Bible, and, what is more, that it must be taken into account in any critical edition of the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament and the various Greek texts of the New Testament, no manuscript copies of which are older than St. Jerome's Latin translation made on then ancient copies." Source New Advent on Revision of Vulgate.


( Don't know if this helps-- but just in case.  The reading to get to here is very interesting....  )

If I understood correctly, St Jerome was a fan of Eusebius  and Eusibius of Origen which if my reasoning is correct such also making Origen Jerome's hero as he was said to be to Eusibius. 

I noted this interesting  point on Origen's view regards interpreting scripture:

"The two great rules of interpretation.... They may be formulated thus:

Scripture must be interpreted in a manner worthy of God, the author of Scripture.

The corporal sense or the letter of Scripture must not be adopted, when it would entail anything impossible, absurd, or unworthy of God." Source New Advent on Origen." 

-----
I have to wonder if the source of Jerome's interpretation (Rm 1:32) is not one of Origen's numerous homelies. Or perhaps, along with the use of Origen's rules of interpretation, and/or from some insight from St. Gregory of Nazianzus said his friend and him well acquainted with pagans, heretics and the faith .


----------



## hummerpoo (Sep 5, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> From New Advent  on Revision of Vulgate
> 
> 
> "At the present day scholars are practically agreed as to the competence of St. Jerome for the work given him by Pope St. Damasus. He, moreover, had access to Greek and other manuscripts, even at that time considered ancient, which are not now known to exist; he could compare dozens of important texts, and he had Origen's "Hexapla" and other means of determining the value of his material, which we do not possess. It is obvious that the pure text of St. Jerome must form the basis of any critical version of the Latin Bible, and, what is more, that it must be taken into account in any critical edition of the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament and the various Greek texts of the New Testament, no manuscript copies of which are older than St. Jerome's Latin translation made on then ancient copies." Source New Advent on Revision of Vulgate.
> ...



Yes, I think this must be considered helpful.  If this were to be considered the super-heavyweight of all resources it would move Art's 25:1 odds well along toward a coin flip.


----------



## hummerpoo (Sep 6, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> From New Advent  on Revision of Vulgate
> 
> 
> "At the present day scholars are practically agreed as to the competence of St. Jerome for the work given him by Pope St. Damasus. He, moreover, had access to Greek and other manuscripts, even at that time considered ancient, which are not now known to exist; he could compare dozens of important texts, and he had Origen's "Hexapla" and other means of determining the value of his material, which we do not possess. It is obvious that the pure text of St. Jerome must form the basis of any critical version of the Latin Bible, and, what is more, that it must be taken into account in any critical edition of the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament and the various Greek texts of the New Testament, no manuscript copies of which are older than St. Jerome's Latin translation made on then ancient copies." Source New Advent on Revision of Vulgate.
> ...



Because you have been so kind as to consider my concern about this one verse, I wanted to share what came to mind when I reread it this morning.

One of Origen's "great rules of interpretation" is reported to be


> The corporal sense or the letter of Scripture must not be adopted, when it would entail anything impossible, absurd, or unworthy of God.



If Jerome was looking at manuscripts of Romans 1:32 that said the same thing as ours do today.  And, if his corporeal sense of those manuscripts was the same as my corporeal sense of our current translations.  And, if he did not have the same sense of caution, or unreliability, or mistrust of his corporeal sense that I have of my corporeal sense.  Then he might apply the great rule of interpretation quoted above and "not adopt" the direct reading of the manuscripts.  And, if his sense of the context was the same as mine, then his extended sense might be the same as mine; that being that the opposite meaning would be consistent with the context.  Effecting that opposite meaning only requiring the addition of one little negative adverb, he might add that adverb, resulting in the reading that we have in the Vulgate today.

That scenario would be a sufficient proof in some circles, but it is not sufficient for me, so I suppose I still have a question concerning Romans 1:32 with the addition of a pretty good possibility that I never had before.

Again, thank you for your input.  It gives me something to chew on that I never had before.


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 6, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> Because you have been so kind as to consider my concern about this one verse, I wanted to share what came to mind when I reread it this morning.
> 
> One of Origen's "great rules of interpretation" is reported to be
> 
> ...



Yes... Ifs.. is not sufficient proof. Jerome is said to have worked very fast, too fast and often to "palliate" Origen. As you say, if I understand correctly what you say, Jerome's insight seems in his interpretation of 1:32 consistent with a well though out understanding of wrath and is certainly more consistent with the very beginning of the Chapter One following Paul's greetings.

It seems to me a sentence that someone must of put very good thought in or it is a remarkable happy accident. The sentence speaks to me of two sets of people affected by sin. People who purposely sin and another set who are the victims of wrath for the exact same sin yet they were not the authors of the sin.

 If I understand correctly it might not have been Jerome's thoughts, but someone else's which he distilled to his fine sentence. But then it might have been Jerome's.

I have a Jerusalem Bible here written in french. It gives as a footnote Jerome's exact sentence, yet the editor chose to write as this perhaps:

 "They know well ... God declares worthy of death the authors of such actions (sinful acts) and not only those who do them but also those who approve also those who commit these acts."

It is a big difference with Jerome's... they understood not, meaning they did not know well the consequences at all.... 

Now as ever I suspect not understanding life consequences for some sins, by not seeing them as sin but indeed a very good and essential thing, is indeed a very human thing. People are indeed approving more sin for the remedy of suffering wrath for which they themselves unknowingly and knowingly committed  and/or unknowingly and knowingly approved and continue to commit. They  are misled calling good evil and evil good... etc... which by simple logic is a sure way to perdition.


I have to wonder now what pivots  are on the words "understanding" "understand"  in Jerome's sentence if not his mind.

And it would be neat to find Homilies that Jerome had access to concerning the effects of sin. ( I suspect by intuition only, that they existed and had a profound effect on Jerome, as they would to his kind of personality in anyone else.)


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 6, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> I will not deal with your Preterist presuppositions.
> I will deal with what Jesus and Nicodemus said.



What they said fits my preterist presuppositions. I've gone over it and over it, looking for what made you declare the essay a lie, and all I find is your own futurist presuppositions causing you to see a lie.


----------



## hummerpoo (Sep 6, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> What they said fits my preterist presuppositions. I've gone over it and over it, looking for what made you declare the essay a lie, and all I find is your own futurist presuppositions causing you to see a lie.



Exactly.
Of coarse it fits.  I understand that as I understand Olliff's essay.  My whole point is that Olliff had to ignore what Jesus said to make it fit.  That is why I see no benefit in rehashing the presuppositions required to make it fit.  If you want to go back to my proof of my position and discuss what Jesus said, and Olliff ignored I am willing.  I am not willing to give a forum to the deception.


----------



## hummerpoo (Sep 6, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> Yes... Ifs.. is not sufficient proof. Jerome is said to have worked very fast, too fast and often to "palliate" Origen. As you say, if I understand correctly what you say, Jerome's insight seems in his interpretation of 1:32 consistent with a well though out understanding of wrath and is certainly more consistent with the very beginning of the Chapter One following Paul's greetings.
> 
> It seems to me a sentence that someone must of put very good thought in or it is a remarkable happy accident. The sentence speaks to me of two sets of people affected by sin. People who purposely sin and another set who are the victims of wrath for the exact same sin yet they were not the authors of the sin.
> 
> ...



So your French JB acknowledges Jerome's translation, but chooses the other, right?  That's interesting.  That alone is more discussion of the dichotomy than I've seen elsewhere.


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 6, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> So your French JB acknowledges Jerome's translation, but chooses the other, right?  That's interesting.  That alone is more discussion of the dichotomy than I've seen elsewhere.



Right it choses the other. I know an individual that has studied where the translation comes from( New Jerusalem). I will sound him out on it... 

But yes the two versions are in the bible I have. Jerome's is in the footnotes to 1:32 and states something like this --> "The latin tradition has read:" And it goes on to give Jerome's rendering. Note that it does not mention Jerome by name.


----------



## hummerpoo (Sep 6, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> Right it choses the other. I know an individual that has studied where the translation comes from( New Jerusalem). I will sound him out on it...
> 
> But yes the two versions are in the bible I have. Jerome's is in the footnotes to 1:32 and states something like this --> "The latin tradition has read:" And it goes on to give Jerome's rendering. Note that it does not mention Jerome by name.



Thanks, much appreciated


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 6, 2016)

Ok... so I talked with a individual who made it his profession to teach on translation in a university setting. ( Do I need to tell you more??) 

The short of what I got out of our exchange is that the greek text has no punctuations whatsoever. So where things begin and end is up for grabs as to context in the ancient greek texts. Or context depends on how we parcel text which can be in many, many ways. He told me that there are at least 250 thousand examples like Romans 1:32 to some degree in scriptures if we look for them.

( Do I need to tell you more??  You know this stuff, right.

He also told me that the French Ecumenical Bible is a small miracle because all  major denominations Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinist have agreed to every word, sentence and footnote. ( A small miracle he said. )  To which I asked I"Is it available in english?" He burst out laughing and said, " They agreed to every french word only. Do you see the problem now?" It was my turn to laugh at this point.

So farther along maybe. I found this little exercise very interesting for many reasons, none of which are about me. What I like most perhaps is that for me it forced me to get in the head and hearts of people I have never met and in Jerome's case lived looooog ago.

Now as for me I like Jerome's translation of 1:32 better that what we have today in most other translations. It seems more human and more intimate of someone, if not Jerome himself, someone near to the source of early christian belief, perhaps someone like Origen and others.

Also Jerome was most likely flying solo, while modern translations are generally group efforts by many gifted people like Jerome. 

I must thank you for pointing out 1:32. I have discovered a passion perhaps for an aspect of faith that I would have laughed at if some had said, "Try it. Study a little of it. It is fascinating. " LOL... 

Funny how things happen sometimes...

PS He also made a point that most translators of  catholic scripture are priests and laughed at this... ( He is one.) Not sure  why he found it funny, but I get perhaps that they are perhaps not disinterested... or influenced by such and such? But I never asked him... why it was so funny, ( like an inside joke?)... LOL Something about  translator priests being a mixture of borrowers maybe... ( like Jerome... maybe)


----------



## hummerpoo (Sep 6, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> Ok... so I talked with a individual who made it his profession to teach on translation in a university setting. ( Do I need to tell you more??)
> 
> The short of what I got out of our exchange is that the greek text has no punctuations whatsoever. So where things begin and end is up for grabs as to context in the ancient greek texts. Or context depends on how we parcel text which can be in many, many ways. He told me that there are at least 250 thousand examples like Romans 1:32 to some degree in scriptures if we look for them.
> 
> ...



Yes, I do understand the kind of stuff you are talking about.  Had I not been working with multiple sources a while back on another passage of Rm. 2, I doubt that the 1:32 thing would have come to my attention.  That's something that one who has not dedicated his whole life can do; not assume that all translations are wrong, but always remember that none of them is all right.  And after a while there are some that you learn to always check, and some that are not worth the time.

I got headed that direction on Sept. 13, 2001.  I wasn't working and was watching a lot of C-Span.  Every news outlet was looking for someone to interview about Islam, and C-Span got the one that nobody else thought of.  Her name was Yvonne Haddad.  She was a Caucasian Syrian Christian, and professor of Islamic studies at some university in Syria temporarily teaching at Georgetown.  When ask what the best translation of the Quran was, she responded with several qualifications, naturally; but did identify one that would be reasonably good for a native English speaker who was unfamiliar with Islam.  When ask by the anchor person if that was a translation or an interpretation, she looked at him like he had two heads and responded, "All translations are interpretations."  I've never forgotten that statement; it proves to be true nearly every time I study; I even used it in a post on this forum a couple of days ago because I trust that it will be understood by others who have studied anything that has made the transition from one language to another.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 6, 2016)

Very interesting dialogue. I was reading a little about the ancient text having no punctuation. No spaces between the words either. I'd sure hate to have to read something like that and try and translate it to anther language.

http://greek-language.com/grklinguist/?p=657


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 8, 2016)

Just going to put this here..
http://www.anewdaydawning.com/blog-1/2016/8/23/the-born-conspiracy


----------

