TLC

No, to clarify, I actually meant the end of life that is in the blood (i.e., physical death)... when any and all laws that might be thought applicable or pertinent to us most assuredly end. Romans 6:7 2 Tim.2:11 Heb. 6:1

Perhaps Eve needs to be included in that which was viewed as salvation. Evidently something was said (or happened) in Genesis 3 that resulted in Adam suddenly naming her "Eve," and her being "the mother of all living." Perhaps that was Adam's confession of believing God's words to her, that life could/would continue after failure. (It's mentioned again in 1Tim.2:15)

As a clarification to my previous post, please note that it was more specifically stating that it was (as #1) from Israel's enemies. (So that applies to Israel only, and no one else.) And, to put it rather bluntly... up until Paul, the same was true of reason #2. In short, aside from what was offered to Israel, what sort (if any) "salvation" do you see mentioned or spoken of in the Old Testament? Okay, let's see... Noah (& family.) 8 souls saved (from death.) Who, what, where, or when else? Diddly squat, that's what. And only a very, very small few ever mentioned outside of Israel once that relationship was in play. Naaman (from leprosy), the widow woman of Zarephath, and Rahab. And the centurion. Maybe I missed one or two... or maybe not. (Kindly let me know, if you have or know of others.) Yeah, well... maybe that's not so much an integral part of the salvation Paul refers to as what many of us (and lots of other Christians) have been taught... But, that's jumping ahead a bit.

Do you see yourself as dead already? Because death eliminates ALL laws, commandments, and requirements of every kind and sort. In other words, my life is done. So, what's left? To live for him.

Yes, there's no question that certain covenants are spoken of, most notably to Israel. And yes, Paul does speak in Hebrews (which I believe he wrote) of a new (better) covenant, but it appears to me that this new covenant relates rather specifically (and certainly most directly) to Israel. In fact, given Paul's concern for all of Israel (and not just those that had accepted Jesus as Lord) and his background, Hebrews offers an highly advanced and powerful insight into both the historical and future covenant relationship between God and Israel. I just don't see the church of the body of Christ brought up or mentioned anywhere in it. Neither do I see the terms of any covenant between God and Christ (or his body.) And as for 1 Tim. 2:5, I'm not convinced that having a mediator necessary implies or mandates a certain need for a covenant.

Surely you know and recognize that "dispensation" is not a translation that is made up. Just exactly why do you suppose they used that word? Do you not think the scholars of 1611 viewed it as a "dispensing" of... something?

Well, how much plainer might you like it than what's written in Eph. 3:2?

"Fully" thought? I guess that's your wiggle word, to imply something being more right than it is. What is written IS a reflection of what's thought. A small subset of all that was written by the direction of God? We're discussing scripture here, not the Iliad and the Odyssey or any chance number of ancient inscriptions.. Nevertheless, even if what we have is incomplete, do you not believe that what is preserved is sufficient to adequately and/or accurately communicate what God might have us know? Sure, but what oral saying or tradition are you supposing taught them something regarding salvation that is not also written? Now, as for the rest of your screed, it strikes me that you have supposed salvation to have a rather broad universal application (meaning, it - whatever "salvation" is - is essentially the same for all), but is something which has only been (or is only being) gradually revealed. And on that premise, I strongly disagree, as I simply do not see the salvation of some being the same as (or equaling) that of others. Consider, for instance, what is written in Dan.12:13.

I'm inclined to think they both missed the significance of the change that occurred with Noah, and neither perceived the administration of grace as starting with Paul. And I agree that vpw's interpretation of Christ's life/ministry here on earth being a special or separate administration from the Law makes no sense whatsoever. Given that mankind is sick (and not what God intended), I've actually come back around to liking "dispensation," when thought of in terms of a dispensary. If you pick up the wrong prescription (perhaps the right medication, but with the wrong instructions) at the pharmacy, not only is it not going to do what it should (or what you think it'll do), it might even kill you. As for "Covenant Theology," I have a hard time seeing exactly which (or what kind of) covenant you might say or think applies to us in this day and time. I guess I just don't see it written and/or referred to as something applicable to us in anything that Paul wrote. Care to explain you thinking on this?

Interesting, in light of the near/far fulfillment pattern of many biblical prophecies.

I don't disagree.

Then perhaps there should be some relatively early attempts to isolate and/or pin down more precisely what salvation can, does, or might mean. Frankly, I'd be curious to know if anyone can show (or explain) how or why (prior to Paul) it means anything much more than, or something other than, the following: -saved/redeemed/delivered/rescued (take your pick) 1) from our (i.e., Israel's) enemies, or 2) from (physical) sickness and/or death Granted, the "entry into the kingdom of God" might allude to something more than this... but, from the perspective of how it was likely thought of or seen by his disciples, I suspect not.

Surely you don't suppose that being (or becoming) more or less popular actually adds or subtracts anything to its veracity. However, thanks anyways for the video, which I may continue listening to it if/when I have more time.

If scripture cannot be broken, then it is inerrant... regardless of whether you or anyone else thinks so. (John 10:35.) So perhaps you ought to remove that from your argument against it. Which would leave your previous claim juxtapositioned alone against a way of understanding a great many (if not most all) apparent contradictions that exist in the scriptures.

Of course it wasn't addressed to you, as you weren't the one trying to define me and persuade others of it. So why bother stating the inherently obvious, that you don't care, when I don't care that you don't care? And, though I do not (and have not) professed myself to be an "expert on all things biblical," I'm curious why you think yourself much more the expert, in that your claiming the concept has no scriptural basis should have or bear so much more authority or weight than me writing something about what I might happen to believe...

I agree with WordWolf. Now to try to determine what those different things are. Yeah, and good luck with that trying to stay away from dispensationalism.

I have no issue believing likewise. It's merely a matter of understanding how his saving grace and mercy are dispensed. And I see it being from before Adam (but not Genesis 1:1).

Oh for sure, it can be discussed. Just like you can keep the blinders on a horse if you want to be sure to lead them where you want them to go. Just means you probably have a certain end in mind before entering the discussion.

Given that my previous response to your banal posting and its snide quips seems to have stirred the pot a bit much (as it appears to have been removed), I won't bother with it much further other than point out the fact that you, Mr. D, are plainly clueless as to who I am, what my background is, how I think, what I do and don't know, and why I believe what I do. And when you bother trying to persuade or convince anyone else that you know more than you do, it actually shows up as nothing more than a reflection upon your own real ignorance. Scoff and huff and puff all you want, but for the record, dispensationlism (in more general terms) is quite alive and well outside the walls of this puny little forum, though it doesn't necessarily appear in the exact same form as might be ensconced in the works of any (or all) of Bullinger, Welch, Schofiel, et al. (Nor does this link encompass or surmise the complete essence or totality of it - http://www.charlottetownbiblechapel.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/David-Dunlap-handout.pdf )

You're projecting. (Because I'm not.) So, not to any of my posts, merely the posts of others... (you know, if you really wanted to help, it might have actually done so had you offered a bit more clarification on that earlier when replying to my post...) Not sure why or where that came up, but that short little clipped statement most certainly appears to have left any important or otherwise pertinent context far behind (if not lost and removed entirely.) But whatever. It's not an issue that appears to have any relevance in this forum.

So, what exactly is the point of this post, WW, and how do you think it affects or would change anything that was posted here previously? More important than who anyone thinks the gospel of Luke might be addressed to (and yes, it remains very unclear to me why you're putting such emphasis on it or are caring to make an issue of it), is understanding the perspective it communicates on the life of Jesus Christ and his relationship to Israel in the fulfilment of certain promises that were made to the fathers. Miss that, and a whole lot of things that are written in it won't make nearly as much sense.

I'm not about to argue or debate the issue, as I don't place the importance of this as high as some others here evidently do. Plainly any dating of it (or when any of the gospels) were written is somewhat speculative by even the best of scholars, and it's relatively easy to challenge the veracity of your "most modern scholars believe" statement inferring that Mark was written c.70 CE. https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/mark.cfm Regardless of when it was actually written, I don't see that as altering it's value or importance, or why it was included where it is in the Bible. The gospel of Mark (be it written by John Mark, or another Mark) is clearly written from or for a particular perspective on the life of Jesus Christ and his fulfilment of certain promises that were given to Israel, as are the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John. Acts, as I see it, is simply written as a very accurate historical accounting of what actually took place. While it (Acts) obviously doesn't (and can't) detail everything, it does record the things and events that God evidently wanted written - regardless of whether or not everything that happened, or that was said and/or done in Acts perfectly aligned with what we might think of as the will (or directing) of God.

By what or who's authority are you making that incredulous claim? Seriously ? Sounds like pretty wild speculation to me. Where do you come up with such stuff? You do know that's quite debatable, don't you? The church father Eusebius places the date of Matthew's gospel in A.D. 41. (which would undoubtedly predate any of Paul's epistles...)

Still, they are referenced to Israel. Whereas (aside from Hebrews) Paul's are different. And even though it wasn't always spoken of or presented well, it is Paul's gospel (which he received directly from the ascended Lord Jesus Christ) that lays the foundation. You might disagree, but had vpw (and twi) done exactly that - and stayed out of everything else - I suspect that they would have had far fewer issues and problems. Problem is, he didn't.

Yes, agreed, and I really have no problem seeing that they more or less speak of the same thing. The issue I have is that I don't see that any of them are applicable to what is (or ever can be) experienced prior to the passing (i.e., the end, or if alive at the last trump, changed) of life that is in the blood. Furthermore, it appears that Jesus Christ's answer to Nicodemus (look closely at verse 8) was evidenced in Christ after his resurrection. And, as mentioned previously, Acts 13:33 specifically pinpoints his resurrection as the day he was "begotten" of God. So, when OldSkool spoke of "those born from above," the problem I have is with its broad application (right now) to anyone other than Jesus Christ, as I just don't see it used like that anywhere in scripture. Evidently this wasn't clear enough in my previous post, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. (Like I said, sometimes my perspective on certain issues is a real bear to communicate well.)