A Deceptive Argument: No Gentiles Under the New Covenant

[mondar]

2--- This is the part that you missed in your rush to justify reading your tradition back into the passage in your defense of eisegetical hermeneutics. It has to do with 8:18.
18 Behold, I and the children whom Jehovah hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from Jehovah of hosts, who dwelleth in mount Zion.

WOW!!! You go to the next chapter and wind up with nothing ...

Interesting. All along your so called apologetics is mere name calling, and spin. Because you fail to understand something, you call it "nothing."

It is an amazing stretch to think that this verse (Is 8:18) tells me INTERNALLY and without knowledge of Jesus and the New Testament (Matthew), that this refers to the Christ.

Notice the lack of content here. You blow smoke, huff and puff, and spew out more name calling and spin with your "amazing stretch" language.

Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me [are] for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion. Is 8:18

It merely says the son of AHAZ is a sign for Israel.

It says nothing about Ahaz. The text is speaking of Isaiah's sons. Oh, maybe this is your method of reading tradition back into the text. Cant read the scripture without putting your tradition glasses on?

The signs are ALREADY GIVEN and are past tense - "hath given me ARE..." CURRENTLY. Signs already given...

Oh, which son of Isaiah was "the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace? Are not these all names of Isaiah's son, just as he said in 8:18? Oh, I forgot, you prefer making up fanciful interpretations to force the passage to comply with some bigoted anti-semetic understanding of principles of exegesis.

Only Christian exegesis can read into this a future sign, much less a Messiah, as the INTERNAL CONTEXT tells us:

And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken. Is 8: 14-15

I figure at this point you must be reading your tradition back into my words too. You fail to understand that I already said that there is a local historical prophecy being fulfilled. This does not mean there is not more in the text.

WHICH Jew would think that the future Messiah would be a "snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem"? A "rock of offence to the houses of Israel"??? How many Jews would interpret this as the Messiah? None before Christ.

He certainly was a rock of offense for the nation Israel. Do you deny the national Israelite rejection of the Messiah? You deny that it is impossible to read the concept of "rock of offense" as referring to Israels rejection?

Really... Let's be honest and cut the hedging. Christians were given a tradition, a teaching, that Jesus WAS the Christ. These Christians, such as the Bereans, went to the OT Scritpures and found such verses and appropriated them into a Christian exegesis. Simple as that. Forget about "internal evidence alone tells me the full meaning of Scriptures".

Why oh my, you mean the Bereans did not isogete the scriptures with a hocus pocus made up Christian tradition? You mean they would not even accept Pauls oral teaching without checking the scriptures to see if these things were so?

Oh, right, you dont need to properly read the OT, you can just allegorize it, and make up whatever you want and just say that it is necessary to read your tradition back into the text. I am guessing you do that with the NT too? Certainly the NT cannot be read for what it actually says, you have to put on Roman Catholic glasses and read it?

I wave my hands and PRESTO, sola scriptura!!! Just believe it, don't worry about backing it up...
Now, when you wave your hands is the sola ecclesia hocus pocus. Oh, and dont worry about logic or scripture, you just read tradition back into anything you want.

Because I don't follow your poor exegesis means that I find the text meaningless?

You seem never to follow poor or good exegesis. Remember, your methods are isogetical and reading your tradition back into whatever you want to in the service of mother Rome.

You have a mighty high opinion of yourself. Too bad you cannot admit you are wrong and have to resort to such stupid attacks.

heheh--- and now I am choosing to lower myself to your moronic level of merely name calling.

Oh, if you dont like me giving you the same treatment back, just read your tradition back into my words, you can surely make it say something better.

Sola Scriptura
Mondar

 

[francisdesales]

Again, you are not reading about the son of the virgin in the internal context. What is his name, Mondar?

And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz. Is 8:3

What does that mean?

From Blue Letter:

plunder speedeth; spoil hasteth, (Isa 8:1-3; Zep 1:14), a name Isaiah was commanded first to write in large characters on a tablet, and afterwards to give as a symbolical name to a son that was to be born to him (Isa 8:1,3), as denoting the sudden attack on Damascus and Syria by the Assyrian army.

What else is said?

For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria. Is 8:4

Clearly, the "son of the virgin" is a CURRENT sign, a sign ALREADY GIVEN, of the Assyrian invasion to come! THAT is the internal context that is read in this passages. The nouns and verbs and syntax...

Let's read some more of the prophesy of the invasion by looking at the nouns and verbs and syntax following the prophesy....

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; [even] the king of Assyria. And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the LORD shall hiss for the fly that [is] in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that [is] in the land of Assyria. And they (flies and bees) shall come, and shall rest all of them in the desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorns, and upon all bushes. In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, [namely], by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard. And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] a man shall nourish a young cow, and two sheep; And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk [that] they shall give he shall eat butter: for butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land. And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] every place shall be, where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings, it shall [even] be for briers and thorns. With arrows and with bows shall [men] come thither; because all the land shall become briers and thorns. And [on] all hills that shall be digged with the mattock, there shall not come thither the fear of briers and thorns: but it shall be for the sending forth of oxen, and for the treading of lesser cattle. Is 7:14-25

Isn't it perfectly clear that these verses, in immediate context, speak of an invasion, of a destruction of the land? The sign is the son, Mahershalalhashbaz.

Now, after reading the rest of your post, I see your shrill complaining is based upon your inability to provide a solid counterargument and not wanting to admit you are clearly wrong by the proper use of nouns and verbs.

There is no point in me continuing, and anyone who can read Is 7:14 to 8:4 will clearly see that the sign, read within the internal context, refers to the coming Assyrian invasion. It is ONLY the CHRISTIAN paradigm that reads Jesus into Is 7:14. Chapter 8 merely speaks more about the coming difficulty for those who are not disciples of the Lord.

It's too bad you cannot see the pitiful position you have painted yourself into and constantly complain about "my" tradition, since it is your tradition, too. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

Regards

 

[mondar]

Isn't it perfectly clear that these verses, in immediate context, speak of an invasion, of a destruction of the land? The sign is the son, Mahershalalhashbaz.

There is no point in me continuing, and anyone who can read Is 7:14 to 8:4 will clearly see that the sign, read within the internal context, refers to the coming Assyrian invasion. It is ONLY the CHRISTIAN paradigm that reads Jesus into Is 7:14. Chapter 8 merely speaks more about the coming difficulty for those who are not disciples of the Lord.

It's too bad you cannot see the pitiful position you have painted yourself into and constantly complain about "my" tradition, since it is your tradition, too. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

Regards

Of course you can drone on an on that the issue of the text is the historical invasion of Israel and its alliance into Judah's territory. I have long ago said that that part is present in the text, and have had that view for many years. What you seem to prefer to do is to make it an issue of spin. To keep repeating over and over again that the text is about Assyria, does not mean that there is nothing else in that text. Why dont you answer questions about 9:6-7? Now certainly the context of 9:6-7 is the same, it is still about the Assyrian invasion, but Isaiah continues to name his children. How about when we get to Chapter 11? Maybe that does not fit your preconceived isogetical notions of the text.

Too bad you cannot respond to rational argumentation about the text. Maybe English is your 2nd language and you are just not good at it?

Mahershallelhashbaz did not "reign on the throne of David." He did fulfill the local prophecies that the virgin should bear a child, and that Assyria would destroy the nations that plague Judah before the child would attain knowledge. He did not fulfill all prophecies in the context. It is obvious to anyone without the "tradition glasses" that the text speaks of Mahershallelhashbaz, and also speaks of one greater then MaherShallelHashbaz.

I have already admitted that if Chapter 7 were read in isolation from the context (6-11) you might read 7:14 as not referring to the Messiah. The problem is that the context is not only Chapter 7. 6-11 all has names of the children of Isaiah. Of course if you put on your tradition glasses you can ignore all this and drone on and on about how Isaiah prophecies Assyria (as though I have not already agreed to those prophecies.)

 

[francisdesales]

Of course you can drone on an on that the issue of the text is the historical invasion of Israel and its alliance into Judah's territory. I have long ago said that that part is present in the text, and have had that view for many years. What you seem to prefer to do is to make it an issue of spin. To keep repeating over and over again that the text is about Assyria, does not mean that there is nothing else in that text.

Well, this is the first I have seen you admit this in writing. Maybe I jumped over it.

And certainly, I NEVER said "this is ALL the text means".

Just as your interpretations of Scriptures, you add things that are not there or skim over things that ARE there (like 2 Thes 2:15)...

My posts over and over again state that there is HIDDEN MEANING that is manifest ONLY after the Resurrection of Christ and a new paradigm is established for the Jewish Apostles who now knew the Messiah HAD to suffer.

ONLY CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS BRING THIS MEANING OUT, THOUGH IT WAS ALWAYS THERE, HIDDEN.

Or have you forgotten my various Scripture quotes from Luke and 1 Corinthians? Maybe you don't really hold Scriptures as highly as you'd like everyone to believe?

Why do you think the Apostles did not understand Jesus' teaching? Because it was not PART of the "internal evidence" of Scriptures! Can you cite me ANY Jew before Christ that understood the "son of the virgin" as applied to the Messiah??? Only when applying a particular reading and tradition do we find "born of the virgin" refering to the Messiah...

But Protestants won't have it because they all "know" that a Catholic cannot be right! Such a thing would expose the mistake of the Reformation. If a Protestant is shown wrong, it somehow nullifies the reasoning behind leaving the Church (in their minds). Oh, we can't have that, now...

Too bad you cannot respond to rational argumentation about the text. Maybe English is your 2nd language and you are just not good at it?

I've responded plenty, pal. You want a word count with those fries?

You have nothing more intelligent to say on the subject. I've listened to the shrill in your responses increase, the insults increase, and I don't see anything that proves Is 7:14 has ANYTHING to do with the Messiah, outside of Christian tradition. It is typical of you to become condescending when you have been beaten at your own "nouns/verbs/syntax" game. Internal evidence of Is 7 does not show that the "son of the virgin" is the Messiah. So much for sola scriptura. What is ironic is that you approach Is 7 from a TRADITION without even recognizing or admitting it.

Adios

 

[mondar]

Of course you can drone on an on that the issue of the text is the historical invasion of Israel and its alliance into Judah's territory. I have long ago said that that part is present in the text, and have had that view for many years. What you seem to prefer to do is to make it an issue of spin. To keep repeating over and over again that the text is about Assyria, does not mean that there is nothing else in that text.

Well, this is the first I have seen you admit this in writing. Maybe I jumped over it.

I mentioned it several times, as I said, is english your 2nd language?

And certainly, I NEVER said "this is ALL the text means".

See, now these are the sort of vague statements you make that leaves doubt as to what you are saying. I doubt I should take this that you agree that there is more in the text as I have been saying, but you want to leave a back door here. I rarely see much of substance, just continual spin.

Just as your interpretations of Scriptures, you add things that are not there or skim over things that ARE there (like 2 Thes 2:15)...

yes, I remember, when I put your quote in context, you failed to respond. This is a part of the spin that you get involved in. When you see a good argument, it is ignored.
I certainly agree that 2Thes 2:15 talks about oral and written tradition. The problem is that the two are not separate things, but the content is the same. If you go back to 2Thes 2:5 you will see that Paul preached orally and then wrote the same identical things.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
Of course, you must misrepresent the sola scriptura position to argue against it. You normally present the sola scriptura position as if it does not include preceding oral teaching before the teaching is committed to writing. Of course I am speaking only of the oral teaching of the apostles themselves, not condoning the concept of an infallible tradition being passed down. It is a great leap in logic to assume that 2Thes 2:15 assumes that there is a continued infallible oral tradition passed down through the generations. 2Thes 2:5 & 15 only teaches that the Thessalonians should keep the tradition taught to them by the apostle Paul. It says nothing about them infallibly being able to pass it down. That is just a spin position assumed by Roman Catholics that is not in the text.

My posts over and over again state that there is HIDDEN MEANING that is manifest ONLY after the Resurrection of Christ and a new paradigm is established for the Jewish Apostles who now knew the Messiah HAD to suffer.

Of course. I know what you said. The only surprise is that you keep repeating the same drivel over and over like I did not understand it the first time. While men might not believe the text, the context is clear that the children of Isaiah in 7:14, 9:6-7, and 11 have special meaning apart from the historical context of Assyria. This is not something that we need a special super-secrete hidden Christian tradition to see.

This is about the third time I mentioned 9:6-7 and 11 as related to 7:14. Of course you dont want to talk about a unified passage and context. It is obvious why you dont want to talk about 9:6-7 and 11. It is obvious why you dont want to talk about one of Isaiah's children becoming a king of Israel who makes the wolf lay down with the lamb.

ONLY CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS BRING THIS MEANING OUT, THOUGH IT WAS ALWAYS THERE, HIDDEN.

Nope, I dont need any special Roman Catholic glasses to see the Messiah in Isaiah 6-11.

Or have you forgotten my various Scripture quotes from Luke and 1 Corinthians? Maybe you don't really hold Scriptures as highly as you'd like everyone to believe?

Why do you think the Apostles did not understand Jesus' teaching? Because it was not PART of the "internal evidence" of Scriptures! Can you cite me ANY Jew before Christ that understood the "son of the virgin" as applied to the Messiah??? Only when applying a particular reading and tradition do we find "born of the virgin" refering to the Messiah...

But Protestants won't have it because they all "know" that a Catholic cannot be right! Such a thing would expose the mistake of the Reformation. If a Protestant is shown wrong, it somehow nullifies the reasoning behind leaving the Church (in their minds). Oh, we can't have that, now...

Heh, your guessing my motives completely wrong. I will forgo the pleasure of judging you motives here.

Too bad you cannot respond to rational argumentation about the text. Maybe English is your 2nd language and you are just not good at it?

I've responded plenty, pal. You want a word count with those fries?

Yes please, now will there be one word count coming up?

You have nothing more intelligent to say on the subject. I've listened to the shrill in your responses increase, the insults increase,

I know that I should repent of returning your arrogant insults with the same behavior. I know that I have lowered myself to your level. But hey, its kind of catchy. It is actually fun. Here I could use your own terms again and talk about you whining, but I will forgo that pleasure.

So let me get this here. Are you asking for me to restrain my insults while you continue with that behavior? Ya know... "hocus pocus"

and I don't see anything that proves Is 7:14 has ANYTHING to do with the Messiah, outside of Christian tradition. It is typical of you to become condescending when you have been beaten at your own "nouns/verbs/syntax" game. Internal evidence of Is 7 does not show that the "son of the virgin" is the Messiah. So much for sola scriptura. What is ironic is that you approach Is 7 from a TRADITION without even recognizing or admitting it.

Adios

I am beaten.... LOL, nice spin. In any case, are you are telling me that Isaiah's son was to be called all these titles?
"The mighty God.... the everlasting father... the Prince of Peace.
Your telling me that the government will be upon the shoulders of Isaiah's son? Catch this whopper. The text says "and of peace there shall be no end. The current Palestinian situation is quite peaceful, right? You really think all these things were fulfilled by Isaiah's son?

The we could go to Isaiah 11. Isaiah's historical son made the wolf lay down with the lamb?

*Note to any other readers.... now watch the allegorical begin! Watch francisdesales refuse to read the Messiah in 9:6-7 and 11 as historically intended.

 

[francisdesales]

Well, this is the first I have seen you admit this in writing. Maybe I jumped over it.
I mentioned it several times, as I said, is english your 2nd language?

Again, I repeat:

It is typical of you to become condescending when you have been beaten at your own "nouns/verbs/syntax" game.

I'll make it more clear for you. I have proven my point enough. Your sad efforts to take me two chapters beyond Isaiah and out of context is just further smoke screens. If you prefer to remain in denial, that is your problem.

Case in point, reader:

*Note to any other readers.... now watch the allegorical begin! Watch francisdesales refuse to read the Messiah in 9:6-7 and 11 as historically intended.

This child in Is 9:6-7 refers to Hezekiah, according to INTERNAL interpretation, whom the Jews will see as a good and proper King in the line of David, compared to Ahaz... Again, only in the Christian paradigm do we make a connection between Is 7 and 9 and Jesus.

The "son of the virgin" has nothing to do with Is 9 outside of the Christian paradigm. Maybe you should go back to Is 8:3 and see the context of the name of this particular child? And to hide it, you continue to act condescending.

I do not intend on responding anymore to your trolls.

Regards

 

[mondar]

I'll make it more clear for you. I have proven my point enough. Your sad efforts to take me two chapters beyond Isaiah and out of context is just further smoke screens. If you prefer to remain in denial, that is your problem.

Oh, so Isaiah was just a naturally fragmented writer who just jumped from topic to topic randomly. Your denial of the unity of the chapters demonstrates your biblical ignorance.

If you read the poem in 9:11...
11 But the LORD has strengthened Rezin's foes against them
and has spurred their enemies on.
You can see the name of Rezin

Well by gosh by gumpers, lets look at 7:8
8 for the head of Aram is Damascus,
and the head of Damascus is only Rezin.
Maybe this is an accidental slip that Isaiah is still talking about Rezin of Damascus, who allied with ISrael to invade judah. The idea was to force an anti-Assyrian coalition.

The difference is not in the theology or content, or even the context. The difference is the genre of literature. Isaiah 9 is poetry and Isaiah 7 is narrative. But of course those things are meaningless when you have an almighty tradition to read back into the context no matter what it says.

Case in point, reader:

*Note to any other readers.... now watch the allegorical begin! Watch francisdesales refuse to read the Messiah in 9:6-7 and 11 as historically intended.

This child in Is 9:6-7 refers to Hezekiah, according to INTERNAL interpretation, whom the Jews will see as a good and proper King in the line of David, compared to Ahaz... Again, only in the Christian paradigm do we make a connection between Is 7 and 9 and Jesus.

So then "Hezekiah" is the child that is born? The birth of this child in Chapter 9 has nothing to do with the birth of the child in chapter 7 and 8?

Of course, when you rely on tradition you can split up the context and ignore contextual cues like I mentioned in 8:18.

The "son of the virgin" has nothing to do with Is 9 outside of the Christian paradigm. Maybe you should go back to Is 8:3 and see the context of the name of this particular child? And to hide it, you continue to act condescending.

Yes, the child of chapter 9 is the same as 8 and the same as 7 and the same as chapter 11. In fact the text in 8:18 says that the issue of the context is the son or sons of Isaiah.

Let me guess, Paul and Saul must be different people because they are not mentioned in the same text? Peter and Cephas cannot be the same person?

I do not intend on responding anymore to your trolls.

Regards

Oh sure... hehe.... your gonna quite writing me all your spin and digs. Feel free to block me or something. Actually, I know I should not be lowering myself to your level, but it got to be fun to write with all the spin and digs. Of course I justify my behavior by the fact that you are the one that started such talk. I figured ahh, I will give him a taste of his own medicine. Now the problem is that I like this way of writing. I actually have been getting chuckles out of your spin on the issues and digs against me and have enjoyed sending them back. Its been fun. Toodles.

See ya later Mr. Hocus Pocus,
Mondar

 

[francisdesales]

In case there are people confused by Mondar's smoke and mirrors, here is the simple answer to his question...

So then "Hezekiah" is the child that is born? The birth of this child in Chapter 9 has nothing to do with the birth of the child in chapter 7 and 8?

No. It is obvious from the context, using the nouns and verbs present, that the "son" of Is 7 and 8 are NOT the same person as the "son" in Is 9, using internal evidence alone...

And I went unto the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the LORD said to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz. 8:3

I and the children whom the LORD has given me [are] for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of the hosts, who dwells in mount Zion. 8:18

The sign of Is 7:14, the child born of the prophetess (Isaiah's virgin or young wife) will signal the beginning of the invasion from the Assyrians. The name is a sign itself! In verse 18, again, the sign is a child of Isaiah's.

Now, onto to 9:6-7

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government is [placed] upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called The Wonderful [One], The Counsellor, The God, The Mighty [One], The Eternal Father, The Prince of Peace. The multitude of [his] dominion and the peace shall have no end upon the throne of David and upon his Kingdom, ordering it and confirming it in judgment and in righteousness from now on even for ever. Is 9:6-7

This is a different person, to the internal reader, then 7:14 and 8:3/18. Why? The son of Isaiah is NOT the one who will have the "government placed upon his shoulder". Nor is his name going to be "the Counselor", etc.. Nor is Isaiah's son heir to the Davidic throne. This refers directly to Hezekiah, and in a future, allegorical sense, the par excellent Messiah who will some day come. No Jew makes the connection with Is 7:14 as the Messiah, nor have they ever. The sign is Isaiah's son.

Clearly, Isaiah's son is not in the Davidic line, so INTERNALLY, you just cannot link the two. It is only Christian tradition with the knowledge of the dual nature of the Messiah, God and man, do we understand these passages to be linked.

Mondar, it's telling that your tone changed and you felt it necessary to attack my person as you got more desperate. But I suppose some people just do not like being shown they are wrong when looking at the "noun/verb/syntax" of Sacred Scriptures.

Regards

 

[brakelite2]

Okay, now that is all out of the way, back to the OP.
Daniel, if you are still around, I read your article with interest and found myself agreeing with it, including your aversion to the Christian Zionists that today spread and encourage and foster hatred and war rather than the peace, forgiveness and love that our Lord requires of us. Encouraging the destruction of the Mosque in Jerusalem to bring the second coming nearer is nothing short of terrorism. Period.
I'd like to add something to your article. When Jesus cleared the temple of the merchants and money-lenders the first timeHe declared Joh 2:16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.

The second time,in Mathew 21, He said to them,"13 It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."
On both occasions Jesus referred to the Temple as being His Father's house. But a short time later,after the cursing of the fig tree for not bearing fruit, and being openly challenged with disbelief regarding His authority, Jesus challenged them back regarding the baptism of John. Jesus put them in such a position that they could either commit themselves to the truth, or deliberately reject it, and thus reject Jesus . The chose the latter by not answering. Jesus then proceeded to tell some parables of the vineyard that produced no fruit. He concluded this by saying He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

Note , same vineyard, different husbandmen.
In chapter 23 Jesus spoke extremely strongly against the hypocricy of the Pharisees and concluded this with His strongest condemnation and most significant sentence in verse 38. After proclaiming previously how the temple was His Father's, Jesus here , after the final rejection of Him by the nation of Israel as represented by her leaders, says the following, Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

The temple from that time forward was no longer the Father's house. From that time forward, the church becomes the temple of the living God. Many many scriptures in the NT attest to this.
This is in complete agreement with the declaration by Jeremiah of the new covenant, how the law would be written upon the heart and the mind of Israel. The covenant law would cease to be in a temple made of bricks and mortar, and be written upon human minds.
Note that it is the same vineyard. It is the same olive tree.
Important to note is that the law that was to be written upon the minds and hearts of spiritual Israel is the very same law that was formerly written on tables of stone in the ark. The law did not change, merely the address. It was a new covenant, not a new law. In Jeremiah the words used are "My laws" . And Paul confirms that it is the decalogue referred to here when in 2 Corinthians 3 he says, 3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.


As for the Zionists. Even the city that Abraham sought was the heavenly Jerusalem rather than the earthly. 10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
This was consistent notice with the other men and women of faith,
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city
So the true children of Israel as those men and women were examples, sought a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly. Thus also we as spiritual Israel seek the same kingdom. Not an earthly as such the Christian Zionists seek, or the Jehovah Witnesses and those who believe in an earthly kingdom 22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

 

[whitecloud]

Hi,

Yah, I was grafted into Israel, buy unilateral covenet before I connected to Gods purposes, I just didn't know it. I once made a mistake, I prayed, Jesus came, Man was I suprised.

ALL. What a powerfull Word when God uses it. Just as though I never sinned. His Kingdom shall not pass away. I read it in the Bible. It's settled forever. The world will all catch up to it ALL just right not All, right this minute.

Have a fine eternaty, ya'll. PTL for His aboundent life given for us ALL. Just not all right this minute.

He who laughs last laughs best, I read that in the bible too. What a great and wonderful God.

How bout, He who comes unto me , I will in "no way" cast off. Because He makes a way where there seems to be NO WAY. Breaking through in prayer, how rare.

Praise God from whom ALL blessings flow, because it is evident, that ALL things work together for good to them who are called of God according to His purposes. I guess I have meaning and purpose to my exsistance after ALL.

Have a meaningfull thanksgiving season, ya'll.

 

[mondar]

Mondar, it's telling that your tone changed and you felt it necessary to attack my person as you got more desperate.

Boo hoo, are you done whining yet?

I did nothing more then to draw attention to all your spin, and give a little back as I did in the previous sentence. In fact the word "whine" came strait from your vocabulary in a previous post, remember? I did very little more then take a page right out of your book (with reguard to the spin.)

But I suppose some people just do not like being shown they are wrong when looking at the "noun/verb/syntax" of Sacred Scriptures.

Regards

You completely failed to point to even one noun/verb/or syntatical issue within the context, with the exception of briefly mentioning the parallelism between Immanuel and Maher-shallelHashbaz. Also, you mentioned the historical setting of the context. These things are common knowledge. You lack of exegetical skills is the reason why you cannot put consecutive chapters together. In fact I have serious doubts if you can do any exegesis at all. I have never seen you do it yet in any conversation. Furthermore, you argumentation in most conversations you engage in is mere appeals to your tradition as authoritative and a bunch of your spin language of constant claims of "showing the other person as wrong." I am completely aware of why you do this. You are imitating some Catholic apologetics forum such as CatholicAnswers.com. I have seen professional Catholic apologists do the same thing. I find such behavior to be quite dishonest. It places no value on truth, all the spin is just a cheap debating trick used to rally an audience emotionally. What I find interesting is that when I use some of the same exact language that you used, you actually do threaten to quit the discussion, but you do not do as you threaten.

I guess some others want to go back to discussing the topic of the NC. I guess I should make this the last post for our jolly little conversation for their sake. I know you might threated to do that, but you dont have the integrity to keep any promises. So it is up to me to leave you have the last post so that others can continue. OK dude, its all yours.

 

[francisdesales]

Boo hoo, are you done whining yet?

Mondar,

The son of Isaiah in Is 7,8, the sign, is not the one who will bear the government on his shoulders in Is 9.

I am sorry if this has offended you and caused such a reaction from you. My only purpose was to show you the truth. I am truly sorry if I did not present it in a more loving manner.

Regards