The Holy Spirit gave us correct hermeneutics.

[postroad]

That's the gist of what I'm getting from an individual in my conversation with him.

It sounds very scientific. By following the proper rules of interpretation the correct understanding of Scriptures should always result.

So why isn't there a consistent product if there exists a fail proof formula.

I wonder what spirits those with a perverted understanding of Christ have?

[Deleted]

."Replying to post 19 by postroad"

The text Jesus quoted is directly linked to the spirit of confusion sent as s punishment.

which doesn't prove that Jesus came to sow confusion and discord amidst believers. But amidst those needing chastisement.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 21 by mrhagerty]

But he made an explicit claim to that text. If he is the fulfilment of that text he isn't the fulfillment of any new covenant Spirit and certainly wasn't the prophesied Messiah. He would have been the one that was to be looked past in hope of the real Saviour.

Chastisement implies some hope of reform by those being chastised. Putting aside that national Israel had been purposely hardened by God himself, what exactly would be the correction that Israel needs to acknowledge?

[brianbbs67]

Here's the real kicker to all this. The New covenant is the old one written in our hearts and minds. So, we don't have to cross seas or go to heaven or any other far place. The knowledge of good and evil is right in front of us and we know it but complain.

https://biblehub.com/jeremiah/31-33.htm

[postroad]

[Replying to post 23 by brianbbs67]

Which Law? The one contained in the Pentateuch or the one in Ezekiel?

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 23 by brianbbs67]

Which Law? The one contained in the Pentateuch or the one in Ezekiel?

Moses, of course. Ezekiel elaborated but changed Moses not. If God does not change, IE 'I am the same today and yesterday and tomorrow", and His law is eternal, why is it not now? Ieosus(Yeshua) called for repentance and adherence to the law. He was a Jew after all.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 25 by brianbbs67]

Ezekiel must have forgotten about this text?


Deuteronomy 4:2
Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.

Deuteronomy 12:32
See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.

Although Christianity does both.

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 17 by postroad"

Which would make Jesus, Satan according to the original text. Because God used evil spirits of confusion to punish Israel.

Sorry but I'm not seeing Satan being named as the influence that sets:
a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, etc. in Micah.

It is the condition of hearts at the time. Micah is post-exilic, so he is chastising Judah for resting on her laurels and becoming lax concerning the promises.

Jesus is identifying the current generation in Judaea with that same condition and that they are not ready for Messiah.

Micah 7:7 is the prophet speaking of his own choice for attitude.

Jesus had claimed to bring about the new covenant of God given unity through the Spirit and yet he identified his true mission to be the spirit of confusion and punishment.

Not His true mission but a result related to His true mission. It is not purposed but resultant. The confusion resulted from the unexpectedness of Jesus as Messiah.

This still can't be used to account for what some see as confusion among believers in Christ's church today.

[postroad]

[[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... bafe412265]Replying to post 27 by mrhagerty[/url]]

Jesus takes ownership of the act.

Matthew 10:34-36 New International Version (NIV)

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[a]

Interesting that the first thing apologists will bring up is context, until suddenly it doesn't suit them.

In the new covenant God had promised this.

Jeremiah 24:7
I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the Lord. They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart.


Although that promise was only given to the remnant that were brought to Babylon while everyone else was written off forever.

But presumably those Jews in Jerusalem where descended from the diaspora.

Seems that God failed in his first attempt at the new covenant when those individuals returned. Maybe it's because he keeps sending a the wrong spirit?

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 28 by postroad"

esus takes ownership of the act.

I don't remember disagreeing. I disagreed that this somehow makes him Satan.

Interesting that the first thing apologists will bring up is context, until suddenly it doesn't suit them.

The context of each text suits me just fine. I said as much.
Where do you see that I need a reminder?

Jeremiah 24:7
I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the Lord. They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart.

Although that promise was only given to the remnant that were brought to Babylon while everyone else was written off forever.

So what are you arguing here - that a promise to His people must include every soul with Jewish DNA irrespective of having faith? He's supposed to give a heart to those who are bitter against Him, or have forgotten Him?

Help me out here with your concern.

But presumably those Jews in Jerusalem where descended from the diaspora.

This part of Jeremiah has a double fulfillment. The disciples are in part a fulfillment. But all of faithful Judaism won't be realized until end times. Parallel to Ezekiel's Valley of Dry Bones.

Seems that God failed in his first attempt at the new covenant when those individuals returned.

Not really. Paul says judicial blindness has happened to Israel until a certain world condition is fulfilled - the Fullness of the Gentiles (Rom 11:25) You know this verse, I'm certain.

This only becomes a failure if the new covenant was all along intended for the 1st Cent AD. No failure is assessed if it is intended for end times.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 29 by mrhagerty]

I'm sure Jeremiah wrote the new covenant promise with the generation returning from Babylon.

I'm not sure what use it would have been to them having any deep future prophecy.
It would simply serve as an agent of confusion.

The promise to irrevocably bind Israel to the Law was already mentioned in the Pentateuch.

Paul takes ownership of the new covenant as I'm sure you are well aware. Of course that also didn't work out.

Whatever future Israel and Temple worship is prophecied in Revelation to be again destroyed as per the will of God.

I think the text was written to describe the 70 AD event but the return of Christ seems to be delayed.

Paul indicated that the hardening of the Jews was independent of any real deficiencies on their part. But as they took the lead in blaming themselves regardless the Law for God's inaction in blessing them it seems odd to now use the concept that they refused to abandon the Law as further cause for punishment.