Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:18 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 412 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 21  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 2:41 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
goalieman wrote:
Actually, Jesus was quite specific in why he spoke in parables and used figurative speech at times, and that was because he didn't want the legalists of his day to get what he was saying (don't have the Bible with me at the moment, but y'all know the verses!). Anyone could have claimed that they were the messiah they were looking for (e.g. Obama ), Christ wanted to weed out the tares from the wheat so to speak.

Are you suggesting that Jesus was chasing off His followers with John 6? :shock:


John 6:64

"But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who believed not, and who should betray him".

It would seem he indeed was seperating the wheat from the tares, eh? 8)

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 2:51 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
goalieman wrote:
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
goalieman wrote:
Actually, Jesus was quite specific in why he spoke in parables and used figurative speech at times, and that was because he didn't want the legalists of his day to get what he was saying (don't have the Bible with me at the moment, but y'all know the verses!). Anyone could have claimed that they were the messiah they were looking for (e.g. Obama ), Christ wanted to weed out the tares from the wheat so to speak.

Are you suggesting that Jesus was chasing off His followers with John 6? :shock:


John 6:64

"But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who believed not, and who should betray him".

It would seem he indeed was seperating the wheat from the tares, eh? 8)

Okay, yes, there are always Judases, but you are not addressing those who were rightly scandalized by what they perceived to be Jesus' suggestion of cannibalism - after all, the Lord Himself had forbidden the eating of human flesh and blood. Why didn't Jesus at least clarify His meaning to the Twelve?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 3:07 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
Southern Doc wrote:
Quote:
Actually, Jesus was quite specific in why he spoke in parables and used figurative speech at times, and that was because he didn't want the legalists of his day to get what he was saying (don't have the Bible with me at the moment, but y'all know the verses!). Anyone could have claimed that they were the messiah they were looking for (e.g. Obama ), Christ wanted to weed out the tares from the wheat so to speak.


Are you suggesting He used hyperbolic allegory? A kind of "code" His followers would have a better chance of understanding but His enemies would be less likely to pin him down on? Couldn't that lead to confusion even among His closest followers who wanted to understand but just couldn't get past their own presuppositions? Lacking some sort of emoticons (i.e. :wink: ) to let His followers in on the code He'd need some sort of "catch phrase" perhaps, like say, "he who has ears, let him hear."

Such as this:


Mark 4:8-10 (New International Version)

8 Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, some multiplying thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times.”

9 Then Jesus said, “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.”

10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables.

Or this:

Mark 4:22-24 (New International Version)

22 For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open. 23 If anyone has ears to hear, let them hear.

Or this:

Luke 14:34-35 (New International Version)

34 “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? 35 It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out.

“Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.”

Meaning that the words he has chosen to convey an eternal truth are allegorical in nature. His listeners are to discern the "truth" in those words which he has chosen to "conceal."

Sort of like John's use of the phrase eight times in Revelation.

Including:


Revelation 13 (New International Version)



Revelation 13

1 The dragon[a] stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. 2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. 3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast. 4 People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?”
5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. 7 It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. 8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.[b]

9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.

There is a reason why amillennialism (based on the hermeneutic which is actually grammatical historical) took hold as the dominant interpretation among Christians globally and historically. For these Christians the language was clearly to be understood as an allegorical assurance to the early church, and subsequent generations, that the mysterious unfolding of events we view darkly are in fact part of a plan by a sovereign God who controls all things, will never abandon us, and will justly judge the living and the dead. There was hope. There was justice for the martyrs. There was a resurrection. There was an eternal reward worth every hardship and beyond our feeble human powers of description. That was a message the early church badly needed under persecution but one that the very nature of Roman persecution required to be presented with "veiled" references. It is still a message that is badly needed.

Maranatha!


I was ready to say "Amen" until that final paragraph! :P

Or..........it could have been worded so that subsequent future generations would have an idea of what was to take place in the future. :wink:

But there's one wee little problem with interpreting Revelation and it's judgements/events as happening during the A.D. 70 timeframe that many do: most scholars agree, even those who do not hold to a futurist view of prophecy, that John wrote Revelation in about A.D. 90. I know what Sothern Doc wrote here isn't dealing specifically with that, but it's hard to see how helpful it would be to Christ's followers in that day, most of whom were jewish, to give them illustrative language of events that they already went thru (e.g. the Temple being destroyed by Titus, etc.), especially if Nero was the beast as many non-futurists contend.

Now I have to resist breaking out some H.A. Ironside about correctly interpreting what the seven heads on the Dragon represent. :wink:

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 3:16 pm 
Offline
Major General

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:01 pm
Posts: 736
Location: Lakewood, CO
Likes: 118
Liked: 147
So, this whole discussion has been interesting and it's obvious that within Christ's Church there are differing perspectives on Israel and the covenant. I think that if we want to support Israel on the political front we have got to maintain secular, political arguments for that support. Scriptural arguments will not win over the public. Btw, I don't know what I am among all those fancy terms for end times doctrines but I happen to attend a church within the restoration movement. I attend a Christian church (not Disciples of Christ which is the liberal branch of the restoration movement) which is a little different then the Church of Christ (non-instrumental) but we tend to be on the same page in a lot of areas. Our tradition of broad Christian liberty in matters of interpretation means that there is more variance among congregations then with denominational churches but there is a general trend. :wink:

_________________
Judith Martinez
"It is true poverty for a child to die so that we may live as we wish."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 3:23 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
Are you suggesting that Jesus was chasing off His followers with John 6? :shock:


John 6:64

"But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who believed not, and who should betray him".

It would seem he indeed was seperating the wheat from the tares, eh? 8)[/quote]
Okay, yes, there are always Judases, but you are not addressing those who were rightly scandalized by what they perceived to be Jesus' suggestion of cannibalism - after all, the Lord Himself had forbidden the eating of human flesh and blood. Why didn't Jesus at least clarify His meaning to the Twelve?[/quote]


You just want to trap me into quote box hades, don't you? :x

I think you have your answer in verse 63..........

"It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT (emphasis mine), and they are life".

I think Jesus made it pretty clear what he was getting at here..............to those who have eyes and ears that is. :wink: :P

How on earth did we get into transubstitutionalism anyway? :shock:

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 3:49 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
goalieman wrote:
You just want to trap me into quote box hades, don't you? :x
Sorry, but this conversation has taken so many directions that it's the only way to keep straight which angle is being addressed! :D
QuoVadisAnima wrote:

Okay, yes, there are always Judases, but you are not addressing those who were rightly scandalized by what they perceived to be Jesus' suggestion of cannibalism - after all, the Lord Himself had forbidden the eating of human flesh and blood. Why didn't Jesus at least clarify His meaning to the Twelve?
goalieman wrote:
I think you have your answer in verse 63..........

"It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT (emphasis mine), and they are life".

Look at the verse in context: "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, 'This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?' Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, 'Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.'" [John 6:60-63]

In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase "the flesh" instead of "my flesh" or "the flesh of the Son of Man" because He is not talking about His own body; He is referring to natural man. Man is composed of spirit and body/flesh. Our flesh is that created, corruptible part of us; the spirit is that which is capable of relating to God and receiving His revelation.

Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can't understand how He would give them His flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of "the flesh" to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who discern the things of God with their spirits.

Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh "counts for nothing" otherwise His death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that His own body, His flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh clearly does count for something, He must have been referring to "flesh" other than His own in v. 63.

goalieman wrote:
I think Jesus made it pretty clear what he was getting at here..............to those who have eyes and ears that is. :wink: :P
Don't start getting snarky with me, young man!

Seriously, though, do you realize how many of us hold differing or even contradictory beliefs and each would insist that we do have the ears to hear? It is one of the major impediments to evangelization.

goalieman wrote:
How on earth did we get into transubstitutionalism anyway? :shock:

Because YOU started talking about symbolism - see, it's all YOUR fault! :lol:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 3:59 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
Here's a snip from a "This Rock" article that I think makes the point much better:
Quote:
...an appeal to John 6:63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

Paul Confirms This

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

Father Frank Chacon makes what I believe to be a valid point as well:
Quote:
From the very beginning, the apostles took Jesus’ words literally and passed the literal teaching down through the succession of bishops. The Early Church believed in the Real Presence. The Early Church Fathers unanimously taught the Real Presence. It was considered a universal doctrine of those who considered themselves Christian. The Catholic Church never stopped teaching it. The Eucharist, which is Christ Himself, is the center of our lives, the center of our worship. It is a re-presentation of that same sacrifice on Calvary, the once-and-for-all sacrifice that Christ makes accessible to all of us.

(I snipped the early Church Father quotes he used to save space - here is the link if you want to read them http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp)

It was not until the 16th century that some Christian denominations reversed themselves on this historically Christian doctrine. Christian denominations that broke off the Church prior to the 16th century (Orthodox, Armenians, etc.) all kept the doctrine of the ancient Church.

“Suppose for a minute that the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence is false. Jesus must have foreseen that the whole Church would embrace this false doctrine and fall into idolatry. He would have known that the very words he spoke in John 6 and at the Last Supper led them to do so. Why would he have deliberately used language that he knew Christians would misinterpret? Why would Jesus have allowed his followers to be so horribly mistaken when he could have prevented it with a simple word of explanation? It is simply impossible that the Divine Teacher was so clumsy in proclaiming his doctrines that he led all his students into error.”


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 4:00 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:50 pm
Posts: 1022
Likes: 10
Liked: 14
goalieman, I used to think the same way as you concerning eschatology, but after giving a serious study to all of the eschatological view points, I found Partial Preterism to be the most logical.

All this eschatological talk is really interesting though. 8) :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 4:12 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
QVA, here's where we will have a big difference of opinion. While the physical death of Christ is of great significance, it was his being spiritually seperated, or maybe better put, having the relationship that He always enjoyed with the Father greatly diminished while on the cross, from the Father "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me" that took the place of our being spiritually seperated from God and subsequently paying the price that none of us could ever pay and thus making it possible now to enjoy fellowship with our Creator once again. The spiritual suffering that Christ endured on that cross was far more painful to him than the physical pain he endured on it.

P.S. I should add that Christ's disciples were baffled at His talk of needing to endure the cross even AFTER he had been crucified. So his words in chapter 6 are pretty consistant with his disciples confusion............and they were a confused bunch! (Like we would have done better, LOL!). :D

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 4:17 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
jdbrown wrote:
goalieman, I used to think the same way as you concerning eschatology, but after giving a serious study to all of the eschatological view points, I found Partial Preterism to be the most logical.

All this eschatological talk is really interesting though. 8) :D



Clearly, I've come to a different conclusion. 8) :) :wink:

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 4:46 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
Quote:
But there's one wee little problem with interpreting Revelation and it's judgements/events as happening during the A.D. 70 timeframe that many do: most scholars agree, even those who do not hold to a futurist view of prophecy, that John wrote Revelation in about A.D. 90. I know what Sothern Doc wrote here isn't dealing specifically with that, but it's hard to see how helpful it would be to Christ's followers in that day, most of whom were jewish, to give them illustrative language of events that they already went thru (e.g. the Temple being destroyed by Titus, etc.), especially if Nero was the beast as many non-futurists contend.


Correct, I was not saying that. I accept what I consider the best scholarship which places the writing around 95 during the reign (and resumption of traditional state paganism) of Domitian. One of the problems with the Book of Revelation is we have no manuscript or Church Father reference to it until the late 2nd Century (c. 170) and no reference to specific persecution against Jews or Christians under Domitian until the late 3rd Century. That is one of the reasons why Revelation out of all the Books generally considered as part of the Canon experienced the most opposition and controversy (to this day) to its inclusion.

Most Christian leaders through history therefore gave it a pretty wide-berth. Augustine (who systematized the understanding of its historic non-futurist interpretation), Luther (who rejected it as central Canon relegating it to his apocrypha) , and Calvin (who included it but it was the only book he never wrote a commentary on), all de-emphasized the need to understand the Book as a road map to future events and, like the most famous early opponents of its inclusion in the Canon, feared that the vast disparity of "reasonable" or "revealed" interpretations would foment schism.

Yet much later some (like Scofield and later Moody) considered it "Fundamental" to the core Gospel message. And that is where we are today.

I accept it as "God breathed" and inspired, but I am very reluctant to camp too hard on particulars and firmly believe that Christian liberty should be the watchword. This for no other reason than the clear ability of brethren to be Christians for 60 years before John penned the Revelation in 95 A.D. Whatever insights Revelation provides to understanding God and His will (past, present, future) those insights were not "The Gospel."

As far as why
"it's hard to see how helpful it would be to Christ's followers in that day, most of whom were jewish, to give them illustrative language of events that they already went thru."
You really have a hard sell on this with me.
Why would it be valuable? Because its history! The whole Biblical narrative is a contextualization of God moving through history, always faithful though his children were not, always reminding them to "remember" so that they might in the future "live." {which is why the symbolism of the Lord's Supper seems the obvious crux of its purpose to me [sorry QVA I was just using the argument for leverage] "Do This in Remembrance of Me."}

One might just as easily ask "how helpful it would be to Christ's followers in that day" to know that in 1948 a state of Israel would be established in Palestine run overwhelmingly by secular Jews? Don't worry Sarah, just wait till the Huckabeanns restore the Temple in 2019! If anything such a view would make more likely, not less likely, keeping ones head down and assimilating to the Roman culture.

To further confuse

I actually do believe that Romans 11 likely does teach that Israel will be saved before the Last Day. And that perhaps (if you look at Paul's full argument) even those who have rejected Christ of the people of Israel. This is seemingly indeed because God will be faithful to His promise to Abraham even if his descendents are not as a further manifestation of His Grace.

Romans 11

7 What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, 8 as it is written:

“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that could not see
and ears that could not hear [there is that language again],
to this very day.”[c]

9 And David says:

“May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever.”[d]

11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!
13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
Jesus on the cross asked for the forgiveness of those who knew not what they did.

Go figure?

Yet there is nothing in this that requires a state of Israel.

If it does...well...He is the MAN!

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 4:53 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
goalieman wrote:
QVA, here's where we will have a big difference of opinion. While the physical death of Christ is of great significance, it was his being spiritually seperated, or maybe better put, having the relationship that He always enjoyed with the Father greatly diminished while on the cross, from the Father "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me" that took the place of our being spiritually seperated from God and subsequently paying the price that none of us could ever pay and thus making it possible now to enjoy fellowship with our Creator once again. The spiritual suffering that Christ endured on that cross was far more painful to him than the physical pain he endured on it.

Umm, no, He was not separated from the Father (how could such a thing be accomplished without flirting with the heresy of dividing Jesus into a human self and a Divine self each separate from the other?).

Jesus was not speaking for Himself; He was speaking to His disciples by quoting prophetic Messianic Scripture (in their day, they knew Scripture well enough to recognize a passage from its beginning the way we would recognize a familiar song). Read Psalm 22, note verse 1, but then read it all the way to the end.

Basically, He was comforting them by reminding them that the Messiah was to suffer - so badly that He would appear as one forsaken by God - but that it was part of God's plan & He would ultimately & gloriously triumph.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 5:02 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
No fair......you have use of multi-colored words and I don't right now!

Two things briefly. First, there are many of my fellow futurists who attempt to dot every I and cross every T when it comes to future events. It's not really necessary to do so. It's the overall framework of the theology that is important. Second, having the hope of a restored Israel with it's Temple would certainly be something of encouragement to the jewish believers of that day I would think. If God had specifically stated 1948 as being that day, maybe not so much. :wink:

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 5:07 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:50 pm
Posts: 1022
Likes: 10
Liked: 14
Why would God want Israel to rebuild the Temple?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 5:08 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
goalieman wrote:
QVA, here's where we will have a big difference of opinion. While the physical death of Christ is of great significance, it was his being spiritually seperated, or maybe better put, having the relationship that He always enjoyed with the Father greatly diminished while on the cross, from the Father "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me" that took the place of our being spiritually seperated from God and subsequently paying the price that none of us could ever pay and thus making it possible now to enjoy fellowship with our Creator once again. The spiritual suffering that Christ endured on that cross was far more painful to him than the physical pain he endured on it.

Umm, no, He was not separated from the Father (how could such a thing be accomplished without flirting with the heresy of dividing Jesus into a human self and a Divine self each separate from the other?).

Jesus was not speaking for Himself; He was speaking to His disciples by quoting prophetic Messianic Scripture (in their day, they knew Scripture well enough to recognize a passage from its beginning the way we would recognize a familiar song). Read Psalm 22, note verse 1, but then read it all the way to the end.

Basically, He was comforting them by reminding them that the Messiah was to suffer - so badly that He would appear as one forsaken by God - but that it was part of God's plan & He would ultimately & gloriously triumph.


Actually got to go with goalie here. And I think many a Catholic theologian (though obviously not in what Goalie want to imply by it).

At the moment Christ "became sin" on the cross he could not be in the presence of God whose Holiness cannot abide a union with sin. This is part of the mystery of the Trinity. His nature did not change, but the intimacy he enjoyed with God was gone. The really tricky part (and one of great debate) is whether the "Spirit" was also withdrawn for this to be completely accomplished. Therefore: God's special presence is removed (Eloi! Eloi!); then His Spirit (which has to be "Willfully" forfeited by Jesus (into thy hand I commend my Spirit)since he himself was innocent of any sin God could not claim his Spirit; then, and only then, all was accomplished "It is finished." As he died.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 5:10 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
goalieman wrote:
QVA, here's where we will have a big difference of opinion. While the physical death of Christ is of great significance, it was his being spiritually seperated, or maybe better put, having the relationship that He always enjoyed with the Father greatly diminished while on the cross, from the Father "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me" that took the place of our being spiritually seperated from God and subsequently paying the price that none of us could ever pay and thus making it possible now to enjoy fellowship with our Creator once again. The spiritual suffering that Christ endured on that cross was far more painful to him than the physical pain he endured on it.

Umm, no, He was not separated from the Father (how could such a thing be accomplished without flirting with the heresy of dividing Jesus into a human self and a Divine self each separate from the other?).

Jesus was not speaking for Himself; He was speaking to His disciples by quoting prophetic Messianic Scripture (in their day, they knew Scripture well enough to recognize a passage from its beginning the way we would recognize a familiar song). Read Psalm 22, note verse 1, but then read it all the way to the end.

Basically, He was comforting them by reminding them that the Messiah was to suffer - so badly that He would appear as one forsaken by God - but that it was part of God's plan & He would ultimately & gloriously triumph.


To be clear, some would say seperated, I would not, which is why I said "greatly diminished".
It was the fellowship that they had enjoyed for eternity that was effected.

Clearly we're not going to agree on this issue, but at least we know where we're both coming from on the subject. :)

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 5:11 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
Just so you know no one's offended me if I don't reply for a while:

I'm off to Walmart! I'll catch up later.

Take it literally. :wink:

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 5:15 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
jdbrown wrote:
Why would God want Israel to rebuild the Temple?


To be Christ's earthy throne when he reigns over the earth during the 1000 year period of time after He comes back to rule. It's one of many possibilities............

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 5:21 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:50 pm
Posts: 1022
Likes: 10
Liked: 14
goalieman wrote:
jdbrown wrote:
Why would God want Israel to rebuild the Temple?


To be Christ's earthy throne when he reigns over the earth during the 1000 year period of time after He comes back to rule. It's one of many possibilities............

Isn't the Temple supposed to be destroyed again?

Why would God use nonbelievers to build His Temple?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 5:22 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
Quote:
Why would it be valuable? Because its history! The whole Biblical narrative is a contextualization of God moving through history, always faithful though his children were not, always reminding them to "remember" so that they might in the future "live." {which is why the symbolism of the Lord's Supper seems the obvious crux of its purpose to me [sorry QVA I was just using the argument for leverage] "Do This in Remembrance of Me."}

Not a problem! I was under no misapprehension of your theological position here. :)

And I don't disagree with your point other than the fact that it cannot be all there was to it because this verse is not all there is to it. But for the purpose of your argument, looking strictly at this verse, does it really simply mean "don't forget"?

I do not know Greek, but I do know how to use a Lexicon! :D
Look at Hebrews 10:3 which uses the same word for "remembrance" ("anamnesis") as the verse that we are talking about. It is talking about remembrance in terms of performing a sacrifice - that is, an action being performed rather than a mental process.

I also have to leave the computer for a while & don't have time to fully respond so I hope you don't mind if I leave another article quote regarding this verse for your consideration instead
Quote:
The Manner of Melchizedek

The Old Testament predicted that Christ would offer a true sacrifice to God using the elements of bread and wine. In Genesis 14:18, Melchizedek, the king of Salem (that is, Jerusalem) and a priest, offered sacrifice under the form of bread and wine. Psalm 110 predicted Christ would be a priest "after the order of Melchizedek," that is, offering a sacrifice in bread and wine. We must look for some sacrifice other than Calvary, since it was not under the form of bread and wine. The Mass meets that need.

Furthermore, "according to the order of Mel-chizedek" means "in the manner of Melchizedek." ("Order" does not refer to a religious order, as there was no such thing in Old Testament days.) The only "manner" shown by Melchizedek was the use of bread and wine. A priest sacrifices the items offered—that is the main task of all priests, in all cultures, at all times—so the bread and wine must have been what Melchizedek sacrificed.

Fundamentalists sometimes say Christ followed the example of Melchizedek at the Last Supper, but that it was a rite that was not to be continued. They undermine their case against the Mass in saying this, since such an admission shows, at least, that the Last Supper was truly sacrificial. The key, though, is that they overlook that Christ said, "Do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19). Clearly, he wasn’t talking about a one-time thing.

"Do this in remembrance of me" can also be translated as "Offer this as my memorial sacrifice." The Greek term for "remembrance" is anamnesis, and every time it occurs in the Protestant Bible (whether in the New Testament or the Greek Old Testament), it occurs in a sacrificial context. For example, it appears in the Greek translation of Numbers 10:10: "On the day of your gladness also, and at your appointed feasts, and at the beginnings of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; they shall serve you for remembrance [anamnesis] before your God: I am the Lord your God." Thus the Eucharist is a remembrance, a memorial offering we present to God to plead the merits of Christ on the cross.

Fundamentalists disbelieve claims about the antiquity of the Mass’s sacrificial.aspects, even if they think the Mass, in the form of a mere commemorative meal, goes all the way back to the Last Supper. Many say the Mass as a sacrifice was not taught until the Middle Ages, alleging Innocent III was the first pope to teach the doctrine.

But he merely insisted on a doctrine that had been held from the first but was being publicly doubted in his time. He formalized, but did not invent, the notion that the Mass is a sacrifice. Jimmy Swaggart, for one, goes further back than do many Fundamentalists, claiming, "By the third century the idea of sacrifice had begun to intrude." Still other Fundamentalists say Cyprian of Carthage, who died in 258, was the first to make noises about a sacrifice.

But Irenaeus, writing Against Heresies in the second century, beat out Cyprian when he wrote of the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and Irenaeus was beaten out by Clement of Rome, who wrote, in the first century, about those "from the episcopate who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices" (Letter to the Corinthians 44:1).

Furthermore, Clement was beaten out by the Didache (a Syrian liturgical manual written around A.D. 70), which stated, "On the Lord’s Day . . . gather together, break bread and offer the Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled, lest our sacrifice be defiled. For this is that which was proclaimed by the Lord: ‘In every place and time let there be offered to me a clean sacrifice. For I am a great king,’ says the Lord, ‘and my name is wonderful among the gentiles’ [cf. Mal. 1:11]" (14:1–3).

It isn’t possible to get closer to New Testament times than this, because Clement and the author of the Didache were writing during New Testament times. After all, at least one apostle, John, was still alive.


Regarding "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me", I'll also have to get back to you all on that, but for the sake of clarification - do you both propose that it is only a coincidence that the Lord's words mirrored the beginning of Psalm 22?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 412 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 21  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY