Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:05 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 412 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 21  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 6:13 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
Yes, it would be great to be able to read the Greek. The Concordance is the best I can do. Still, Dr. Ryrie agrees that a better translation would be "among" not "within," and he is a seminary professor as well.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 6:15 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
Justgrace makes my life so much easier on these boards! :lol:

A clear disticntion should be made between a worldly kingdom and a kingdom set up by the Lord himself. When Christ says his Kingdom is not of this world, that's because He will usher in His own righteous kingdom, one apart from anything man has set up previously, not a wordly kingdom made by men. When Christ said that the Kingdom of God was at hand, it really was that close, if only Israel had excepted their Messiah then. When they finally do repent and except him as their promised Messiah, then Christ will set up his kingdom on this earth. I, for one, am pretty excited about that day! :)

....... I edit this post to say that the people who put together concordances are also experts in Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic writings, so to say that a concordence "misled" someone is to say that one has better understanding of those languages than the people who translated them for Strong's, the concordance in question here. Maybe that's so, but it's a tough sell.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 6:46 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
An interesting footnote to Luke 17:21 is found in the Scofield study Bible..........

"Greek entos, meaning "in the midst". It could not be said of a self-righteous, Christ-rejecting Pharisee that the kingdom of God, as to its spiritual content, was "within him", as in the KJV. Our Lord's whole answer, designedly enigmatic to the Pharisees (cp. Mt.13:10-13), has a dispensational meaning. The kingdom in its outward form, as covenanted to David (Sam. 7:16) and described by the prophets (Zech.12:8) had been rejected by the Jews, so that, during this present age, it would not "come with observation" (lit. "outward show") but in the hearts of men (see Luke 19:11-12; Acts 1:6-8; Romans 14:17). Meantime, the kingdom was actually "in the midst" of the Pharisees in the persons of the King and His disciples. Ultimately the kingdom of heaven will come with outward show. See v. 24."

Pretty good explaination, IMHO. :)

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



Post by goalieman Liked by: justgrace
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:31 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
mikethom1 wrote:
I commend you for using your concordance to dig deeper into the Scriptures. I would caution you, however, that if you somehow get off on the wrong track and trace the wrong Greek word, it may lead to strange or incorrect conclusions.
...

When I provided that the information on the Greek in Luke 17:20-21, I was not relying on a concordance. I was reading it from the Greek text of the New Testament. I studied classical Greek for three years in college and New Testament (Koine) Greek for another three years in seminary. In my years in the public ministry I have written several exegesis papers on selected sections of the Greek New Testament. In studying for my weekly sermons, I begin by going to the Greek original and translating it. So when I wrote above that the Greek word for “within” in that passage is entos, I was not expressing an opinion. It appears that in this case the concordance has misled you. If you still don’t believe me, find someone else who has studied New Testament Greek and ask him or her.


I certainly do not want to mislead anyone, so I have a call in to our church's resident Greek expert--our pastor. :wink: But he has all his family home so it may be tomorrow.

This should be interesting, because one of his seminary professors was Dr. Charles Ryrie. Small world.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:03 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:29 am
Posts: 136
Likes: 1
Liked: 18
goalieman wrote:
An interesting footnote to Luke 17:21 is found in the Scofield study Bible..........

"Greek entos, meaning "in the midst". It could not be said of a self-righteous, Christ-rejecting Pharisee that the kingdom of God, as to its spiritual content, was "within him", as in the KJV. Our Lord's whole answer, designedly enigmatic to the Pharisees (cp. Mt.13:10-13), has a dispensational meaning. The kingdom in its outward form, as covenanted to David (Sam. 7:16) and described by the prophets (Zech.12:8) had been rejected by the Jews, so that, during this present age, it would not "come with observation" (lit. "outward show") but in the hearts of men (see Luke 19:11-12; Acts 1:6-8; Romans 14:17). Meantime, the kingdom was actually "in the midst" of the Pharisees in the persons of the King and His disciples. Ultimately the kingdom of heaven will come with outward show. See v. 24."

Pretty good explaination, IMHO. :)




1. Scofield: “Our Lord's whole answer, designedly enigmatic to the Pharisees (cp. Mt.13:10-13), has a dispensational meaning.” Jesus intended this to be enigmatic to the Pharisees? There is nothing in the context to suggest such a thing. Scofield’s reference to Mt 13 does not help him. There Jesus was explaining why He used so many parables in His public teaching. Here Jesus was trying to instruct and warn the Pharisees, not hide the truth from them. This was not a parable.

2. Scofield: “The kingdom in its outward form, as covenanted to David (Sam. 7:16) and described by the prophets (Zech.12:8) had been rejected by the Jews, so that, during this present age, it would not "come with observation" (lit. "outward show") but in the hearts of men (see Luke 19:11-12; Acts 1:6-8; Romans 14:17). ” Here Scofield offers his opinion as to why the kingdom would not come with observation. He claims that this is because the kingdom in its outward form had been rejected by the Jews. To this I would respond:

a. Scofield asserts that the Jews had rejected the kingdom in its outward form. A study of the four Gospels show that this is not true. The Jews had not rejected the kingdom in its outward form. They loved the outward form. That was what they were anxiously looking for. What they had rejected was the inner essence of the kingdom, the kingdom as a spiritual kingdom designed to bring the spiritual blessings of forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation. The Jews were focused on and enthused about the outward forms of the kingdom, but the inner part (repentance and faith) they rejected. The prophet Isaiah gave God’s assessment of the unbelieving Jews when he wrote: “These people draw near to Me with their mouths [the outward form] but have removed their hearts [the inner essence] far from Me” Is. 29:13.

b. The words “with observation” (Greek: meta para-tereseos) Scofield claims has the literal meaning of “with outward show.” None of the Greek lexicons that I have examined gives that as a literal meaning. The literal meaning is to stand beside something (that’s the para part) and watch (that’s the tereseos part), watching carefully, observation. The idea of a show or display is not found in this Greek root.

c. The real reason why the kingdom would not come with observation is that that is the nature of His kingdom. That is part of what makes His kingdom different from the kingdoms of this earth.

3. Scofield: “Ultimately the kingdom of heaven will come with outward show. See v. 24." This statement can be understood either correctly or incorrectly. It is true that when the Lord returns again in His great final judgment, every eye will behold Him – even those who pierced His side. His return will be visible to all and His power and authority to judge will be undeniable and unavoidable. Then the kingdom which has been visible only to the eyes of faith will be visible to all.

However, if one understands this statement to mean the beginning of an earthly thousand year rule to be followed by additional spiritual struggle and additional comings and judgments, that understanding involves an entirely different set of presuppositions, each of which needs to be carefully examined on the basis of Scripture.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:55 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
To your first two points, 17:21 "the kingdom of God is in the midst of you" is not a statement that appears to be understood clearly by the Pharisees, so it seems it very well was an "enigmatic" statement.

But point #2 is where I think you're really off here. Jesus was the outward expression of the kingdom (he spoke of that kingdom much as in Matt: chapter 5) and it was He that the Jewish leaders rejected. The kingdom the Pharisees were looking for was much different than the one Christ was offering. So the comment in the Scofield Bible (which I should point, I'm quoting from the 1967 version which was revised by a whole board of top scholars) about them rejecting that outward kingdom is an accurate statement.

_________________
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 Jun 04, 2011 1:42 am 
Offline
Captain

Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:27 am
Posts: 200
Location: New Ulm, MN
Likes: 40
Liked: 29
I may sound like a broken record as I repeat myself, but I guess that isn't all bad. I am going to return to the original purpose of this thread and repeat what I have said before. I believe that the US should support Israel because it is a democratic nation in that part of the world.

As to whether I should support Israel for spiritual reasons, I will pray for them and love them as I love all other people whom God has directed me to love as I love myself. The focus of my discourse regarding my faith will never center on whether I support the physical nation of Israel. It will focus on the hope that is within me—my Savior.

Much emphasis is given to Revelation, perhaps because it is intriguing to delve into its mysteries. As we mature as Christians we are able to handle the meat of the God's word, rather than just the milk. The visions which occurred to Jesus’ beloved disciple John as they are recorded in Revelation are a magnificent picture, the meaning of which will become clear when we reach heaven. The words of Revelation give us Christians reason to study the rest of Scripture for clarity. There are many precious truths which can be learned.

As we study, we are amazed by our awesome God who is beyond comprehension to us now. I have heard wonderful Bible classes on Revelation which never focused on the nation of Israel, but focused on Christ, the Lamb who sits on the throne. If He is not at the center of spiritual discussions, then I know something is wrong. If we use more obscure verses to explain those that are clear, then a red flag is raised.

Only the Lord knows who are His elect. We may be able to look on the outward appearance—or the ancestry of a certain people—but the Lord is the only one who looks on the heart. That is why only He knows who are members of spiritual Israel, His chosen people. I would not presume to judge whether anyone, including those who come from the line of Abraham, will eventually repent. The Lord has not told me whom He has elected. We do know that some already are believers and others who believed are already with the Lord; we also pray that others will come to faith, although we cannot know who these will be.

I have yet to see a quote from scripture that tells us that those who believe should support the descendants of Abraham so that they are able to set up an earthly kingdom when the Lord returns. My hope is not in a future earthly kingdom, but I look forward to that heavenly kingdom where Jesus has promised He has prepared a place for me and all believers. That promise is crystal clear.

Focusing on a coming earthly kingdom is a distraction as we discuss the Gospel which is the power of God for the salvation of all who believe. If Bible scholars take my attention away from that Gospel, then I will pray that the Lord help me return to those simple saving truths as He has recorded them in His word.
I think this is especially important as those who do not know the Savior listen to us give a reason for the hope that is within us and as they see where our focus lies.

_________________
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths." (Proverbs 3:5)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 3:37 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
I've been quiet on this thread the last few days because I haven't really had the time to spend on it that it deserves. In fact, (a la Palin!) I have been so distracted here at home that I may have lost track of who is arguing dispensationalism & who is arguing preterism in the midst of the literalism debate. :P

I will try to go back over what has been said already to get my brain caught up to my mouth, well, fingers, but just a few thoughts to stir the pot here:

When Jesus said, "Weep not for me, but for yourselves and for your children. For if they do this in the case of the green wood, what is to happen in the case of the dry?" What do you all believe He was referring to?

While we may debate the issue as regards the Pope, I think we can all agree that Scofield, Strong's, Greek scholars & our favorite pastor all have something in common - God has not given them the gift of infallibility. :wink:

SouthernDoc, I'll concede that I was playing devil's advocate on that point & "Jesus wept" was certainly a reference to Jerusalem, but it is still quite possible that Jesus was referring to (a) the future total destruction of the city, (b) the city fell figuratively while the Temple fell literally, or (c) both

There is Scriptural precedence for this idea: Mt 27:52 tells us that a literal resurrection of the dead occurred when Christ rose. It was literal & it was the fulfillment of prophecy, but it is a preliminary fulfillment & not the FINAL resurrection of the dead that Scripture speaks of happening at the end of time. This is what I had in mind when I spoke of cyclical prophecy.

BTW, don't sweat the snark - I enjoy debating (arguing) with you guys & esp. the fact that we can do so without damaging our friendship. That is so rare!

P.S. Do you realize that when the calendar corrections are made, the fall of Jerusalem to Rome most likely took place in 66 AD? (And when the Jewish "canon" post-Christ is used in conjunction with the NT, that the books of the Bible equal 66? :shock: Whereas the Septuagint makes it 73? Ah, but that's a whole 'nother debate! :D )

Here's a cartoon for the preterists!
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 5:58 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
QVA, glad you're back, and thanks for the cartoon!

Aren't you glad that there is a God who knows exactly when everything happened, as well as the exact timing and dates for the future?

But I am glad, also, that He gave us the Bible, which is reliable, trustworthy, and true.

And yes, thanks for all of you, who despite differences in how we have been trained or taught, want to search the Scriptures that "testify" of Jesus Christ. I know this is not supposed to be a theological site, but neither do I see Huck's Army folks as shying away from talking or listening politely to this very important aspect of life. Right now, with Huckabee not running for President, we have less to say about politics. Except Palin, whom I cannot quite understand. :wink:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 11:26 am 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:29 am
Posts: 136
Likes: 1
Liked: 18
goalieman wrote:
To your first two points, 17:21 "the kingdom of God is in the midst of you" is not a statement that appears to be understood clearly by the Pharisees, so it seems it very well was an "enigmatic" statement.

But point #2 is where I think you're really off here. Jesus was the outward expression of the kingdom (he spoke of that kingdom much as in Matt: chapter 5) and it was He that the Jewish leaders rejected. The kingdom the Pharisees were looking for was much different than the one Christ was offering. So the comment in the Scofield Bible (which I should point, I'm quoting from the 1967 version which was revised by a whole board of top scholars) about them rejecting that outward kingdom is an accurate statement.


When two sides are engaged in a debate and each is trying to understand the other’s position, it is sometimes helpful to take one small piece of the puzzle and look at it very closely. For that reason, I feel that this discussion of Scofield and Luke 17:20-21 is helpful. I am certainly gaining some insight into the glasses through which dispensationalists view the Scriptures.

I’d like to focus on Scofield’s expression “the outward form of the kingdom.” What he meant by that may seem obvious to you, but only because you are thoroughly steeped in his theology. Someone who is taking those words simply at face value and who lacks the context of his other comments might arrive at an understanding such as the one I provided above.

It is significant that he does not simply say “The Pharisees rejected the kingdom” or “The Pharisees rejected the King.” Either one of those two statements would have clearly stated what, according to your explanation, Scofield meant. But he chose to say that they rejected “the outward form of the kingdom.”

This leads me to the conclusion that he considers the kingdom as having an outward form and an inner core or an inner essence. It also leads me to conclude that in Scofield’s mind, the Pharisees were rejecting one and not the other. His statement appears to imply that while the Pharisees rejected the outward form of the kingdom, they still had some basic idea about the kingdom right.

The more I ponder this, the more I am led to the idea that perhaps Scofield was trying to say that the Pharisees, along with Jesus’ disciples, were correct in that they were looking for a glorious earthly kingdom (the inner essence). Unlike Jesus’ disciples, however, they rejected Jesus as the head of that kingdom (the outward form).

Does this come close to accurately representing Scofield’s view (in your understanding of it)? I’ll wait for a reply on this question before commenting further.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 12:42 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
Mikethom1, I think that is an accurate description of what that footnote in Scofield is getting at. It would appear to me that the Pharisees rejected both the inner aspect of the kingdom Jesus presented to them and therefore also the outward aspect of that kingdom which would have been governed by the principles Christ taught in Matthew 5 and elsewhere. So, it wasn't an either/or type situation, inner vs. outward, as they rejected both aspects of Christ's offer of the kingdom, which would seem to be inter-connected, for if the Pharisees accepted the inner aspect of the kingdom, it would follow that they would have accepted the outward kingdom as well.

That's great that you learned to read Greek, it's a far more intricate language than English is and has much more descriptive words to define certain aspects of a subject (the word Hell in English for example). I'll have to stick to my concordances for my Greek translations! :lol:

_________________
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 Jun 04, 2011 1:13 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
maryjthom wrote:

I have yet to see a quote from scripture that tells us that those who believe should support the descendants of Abraham so that they are able to set up an earthly kingdom when the Lord returns. My hope is not in a future earthly kingdom, but I look forward to that heavenly kingdom where Jesus has promised He has prepared a place for me and all believers. That promise is crystal clear.


I would recommend reading thru the book of Zechariah for an answer to this. It's a rather convincing book on that subject, IMHO.

_________________
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 Jun 04, 2011 1:28 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:29 am
Posts: 136
Likes: 1
Liked: 18
goalieman wrote:
Mikethom1, I think that is an accurate description of what that footnote in Scofield is getting at. It would appear to me that the Pharisees rejected both the inner aspect of the kingdom Jesus presented to them and therefore also the outward aspect of that kingdom which would have been governed by the principles Christ taught in Matthew 5 and elsewhere. So, it wasn't an either/or type situation, inner vs. outward, as they rejected both aspects of Christ's offer of the kingdom, which would seem to be inter-connected, for if the Pharisees accepted the inner aspect of the kingdom, it would follow that they would have accepted the outward kingdom as well.

That's great that you learned to read Greek, it's a far more intricate language than English is and has much more descriptive words to define certain aspects of a subject (the word Hell in English for example). I'll have to stick to my concordances for my Greek translations! :lol:


Goalieman – I’d like to respond in a meaningful way, but I’m not quite sure which position to respond to. On the one hand, we have Scofield seeming to say that the Pharisees were rejecting the outward form of the kingdom (Jesus) while holding onto its inner essence (the glorious earthly kingdom). On the other hand, we have your personal view, according to which the Pharisees were rejecting both the outward aspect of the kingdom (Jesus) as well as the inner aspect (defined as the principles Jesus taught in Matthew 5 and elsewhere).

I hope you can see my difficulty in responding when the concepts are rather loosely defined and the terminology and definitions used by the chief spokesman of the position are not necessarily followed by others who, on the whole, subscribe to his theological position. It’s like trying to nail jello to a wall.

Perhaps a different approach might help. How would you answer this question:

If the Jews as a whole (including the Pharisees) had received Jesus as the Messiah when He first came to earth, would He have established a glorious earthly kingdom at that time?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 1:41 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
My answer is yes to your last question, though it's clear that God knew in advance that this was not going to happen. If not theorectically possible that the Jewish leaders could have accepted the kingdom that Jesus offered (with Christ ruling over that kingdom, not them of course), then why offer that kingdom at all?

I think where we might be talking past each other here is that I don't think Scofield is suggesting that it was just the outward aspect of the kingdom that the Pharisees were rejecting, as it was obvious that they were rejecting the spiritual essense as well. Hope that helps!

_________________
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 Jun 04, 2011 3:17 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
goalieman wrote:
That's great that you learned to read Greek, it's a far more intricate language than English is and has much more descriptive words to define certain aspects of a subject (the word Hell in English for example). I'll have to stick to my concordances for my Greek translations! :lol:


Well you have much company. I only had a year of Koine which is just enough to get you in trouble when you try to do your own translations but is great for detecting when folks are just trying to buffalo you with "the original Greek ACTUALLY says" (then pray tell why the interpreters chose not to use those words? What is the grammatical/historical argument?).

It's a shame the Cyrus I. Scofield also never received a degree and seems to have never studied Greek himself but instead relied on Lexicons and the assistance of others. He later claimed the honorific D.D. (Doctor of Divinity) but there is no documentation as to where he obtained such.

We do know that he failed in politics, failed in business, failed in law, then failed as a husband and father. I know that all is forgiven by Christ's blood, but his divorce (granted to his petitioning wife for abandonment in 1883) came four years after his professed conversion in 1879 and two years after his "calling" to ministry.

He is considered by historians of American Religion as the most influencial Dispensationalist (a few credit Darby or Moody). His influence was substantial in promoting Pre-Millennial Dispensationalism from a small minority position among American evangelicals to one of wide acceptance. His study bible appealed to God fearing, often little educated, laymen hungry for a tool to better grasp and defend the truth of scripture they correctly saw as under attack by modernists and modernists scholars. Much of what he presented was a well packaged and unoriginal defense (I do not view that as a "bad" thing) of traditional orthodoxy. What was new was his systematic defense of Dispensationalism, and particularly the Dispensationalism of the Plymouth Brethren (who split over the issue) and John Nelson Darby.

Yet his doctrines and scholarship never moved much beyond a narrow band of American evangelical movements (mostly Baptist [and not by any means all of these]) have always been controversial (his primary device is to use the footnote to convey a Revised Standard or idiosyncratic translation of the cited text within the margins of his chosen KJV text). KJV was widely considered the most "conservative" and trusted text. Therefore he retained "the sound" of KJV (which many physiologically equate with the authority and the voice of God) while altering the way his readers understood those increasingly antiquated words about which they had little personal knowledge.

The power of DTS (Dallas Theological Seminary) and Moody Press to create a "mainstream" or "orthodox" position on these issues has always been in tension with the powerful desire for local congregational autonomy and freedom of conscience. Resultingly there has been much division.

I personally don't have a an actual "dog" in this fight as I don't believe the Believer's position on "End Times" to be a fundamental point of fellowship. But Scofield did and many of his fans still do. I "get" that. I don't like it that some think I won't be around for the best part of it (at best), but I can respect it if they are compelled by their understanding of the Truth which they are required to speak (in love). But please know that there are many earnest, educated, dedicated, biblically knowledgeable, and very theologically conservative Christians who hold to the amillennial view. The Kingdom is not, and never will be, of this world. The Kingdom is within you and on the Last Day we shall fully know even as we are fully known. These Christians constitute just a part of the vast majority of all Christians of varied stripes who hold that view. These are in the company of the vast majority of all Christians historically who were not waiting for a physical earthly kingdom to reign for a thousand years but a straitforward final Judgment Day.


Questions:

For Dispensationalists

Where will the throne of Jesus physically be located?

Will in be the Temple Mount or simply Jerusalem itself?

Would it be the mercy seat itself in the rebuilt Temple?

What is the scripture that can tell us the locale, if any?

_________________
"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 Jun 04, 2011 3:38 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:29 am
Posts: 136
Likes: 1
Liked: 18
goalieman wrote:
My answer is yes to your last question, though it's clear that God knew in advance that this was not going to happen. If not theorectically possible that the Jewish leaders could have accepted the kingdom that Jesus offered (with Christ ruling over that kingdom, not them of course), then why offer that kingdom at all?

I think where we might be talking past each other here is that I don't think Scofield is suggesting that it was just the outward aspect of the kingdom that the Pharisees were rejecting, as it was obvious that they were rejecting the spiritual essense as well. Hope that helps!


Goalieman – Just to be clear… I was not asking whether you feel it was theoretically possible for all of the Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah at His first coming. I assume that anyone would say that that was theoretically possible. What I wanted to know was what the result of that acceptance would have been. In other words...

What would have happened if all of the Jews who were alive at the time when Jesus first came would have accepted Him as the promised Savior?

Would that have resulted in the immediate establishment of a glorious earthly kingdom?

From your previous answer, it seems that your answer is yes, but I wanted to be perfectly clear on this.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 4:21 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
Southern Doc wrote:
goalieman wrote:
That's great that you learned to read Greek, it's a far more intricate language than English is and has much more descriptive words to define certain aspects of a subject (the word Hell in English for example). I'll have to stick to my concordances for my Greek translations! :lol:


Well you have much company. I only had a year of Koine which is just enough to get you in trouble when you try to do your own translations but is great for detecting when folks are just trying to buffalo you with "the original Greek ACTUALLY says" (then pray tell why the interpreters chose not to use those words? What is the grammatical/historical argument?).

It's a shame the Cyrus I. Scofield also never received a degree and seems to have never studied Greek himself but instead relied on Lexicons and the assistance of others. He later claimed the honorific D.D. (Doctor of Divinity) but there is no documentation as to where he obtained such.

We do know that he failed in politics, failed in business, failed in law, then failed as a husband and father. I know that all is forgiven by Christ's blood, but his divorce (granted to his petitioning wife for abandonment in 1883) came four years after his professed conversion in 1879 and two years after his "calling" to ministry.

He is considered by historians of American Religion as the most influencial Dispensationalist (a few credit Darby or Moody). His influence was substantial in promoting Pre-Millennial Dispensationalism from a small minority position among American evangelicals to one of wide acceptance. His study bible appealed to God fearing, often little educated, laymen hungry for a tool to better grasp and defend the truth of scripture they correctly saw as under attack by modernists and modernists scholars. Much of what he presented was a well packaged and unoriginal defense (I do not view that as a "bad" thing) of traditional orthodoxy. What was new was his systematic defense of Dispensationalism, and particularly the Dispensationalism of the Plymouth Brethren (who split over the issue) and John Nelson Darby.

Yet his doctrines and scholarship never moved much beyond a narrow band of American evangelical movements (mostly Baptist [and not by any means all of these]) have always been controversial (his primary device is to use the footnote to convey a Revised Standard or idiosyncratic translation of the cited text within the margins of his chosen KJV text). KJV was widely considered the most "conservative" and trusted text. Therefore he retained "the sound" of KJV (which many physiologically equate with the authority and the voice of God) while altering the way his readers understood those increasingly antiquated words about which they had little personal knowledge.

The power of DTS (Dallas Theological Seminary) and Moody Press to create a "mainstream" or "orthodox" position on these issues has always been in tension with the powerful desire for local congregational autonomy and freedom of conscience. Resultingly there has been much division.

I personally don't have a an actual "dog" in this fight as I don't believe the Believer's position on "End Times" to be a fundamental point of fellowship. But Scofield did and many of his fans still do. I "get" that. I don't like it that some think I won't be around for the best part of it (at best), but I can respect it if they are compelled by their understanding of the Truth which they are required to speak (in love). But please know that there are many earnest, educated, dedicated, biblically knowledgeable, and very theologically conservative Christians who hold to the amillennial view. The Kingdom is not, and never will be, of this world. The Kingdom is within you and on the Last Day we shall fully know even as we are fully known. These Christians constitute just a part of the vast majority of all Christians of varied stripes who hold that view. These are in the company of the vast majority of all Christians historically who were not waiting for a physical earthly kingdom to reign for a thousand years but a straitforward final Judgment Day.


Questions:

For Dispensationalists

Where will the throne of Jesus physically be located?

Will in be the Temple Mount or simply Jerusalem itself?

Would it be the mercy seat itself in the rebuilt Temple?

What is the scripture that can tell us the locale, if any?


Firs up, I was hoping that bringing up the personal background of Scofield or any other person being qouted outside of the Bible itself wouldn't be put in play here. This is something those, for example, who don't like America will do by bringing up that many lf the founders were slave holders and therefore everything else they did should have a bad light shed upon it. It's well known that Scofield had his personal issues, but that he sought to do a good work in putting out his study Bible shouldn't be undermined by that. The background of the apostle Paul wasn't so good either before the road to Damascus afterall. :wink:

I should note here that I have comments from Spurgeon and leaders of the Puritans from the 18 century like John Owen who predicted a future regathering of national Israel into their homeland, just need to get the proper references before I do so. So this theory that a regathering of the Jews in their homeland isn't nearly as new of a concept as some may think.

As to the Scofield Bible itself, the version that I read from had as it's editorial commitee of the 1967 edition the following men:

E. Schuyler English, Litt.D. Chairman

Frank E. Gaebelein, A.M., Litt.D.

William Culbertson, D.D., LL.D.

Charles L. Feinberg, Th.D., Ph.D,

Allan A. Mac Rae, A.M. Ph.D.

Clarence E. Mason, Jr., Th.M., D.D.

Alva J. McClain, Th.M., D.D.

Wilber M. Smith, D.D.

John F. Walvoord, A.M., Th.D.

That's an impressive list of scholars by any standard, so one can not simply say the Scofield Bible is simply the work of one man, at least not the later versions of it. Many changes due to better scholarship were made to the original 1909 edition.

As to the questions, I'll take a stab at it!

1. Zechariah and numerous other places would place Christ's reign coming from Jerusalem. (That was an easy one!)

2. Depends on where the rebuilt temple is, could be the temple mount, but I'll bet it's in Jerusalem. :wink:

3. Don't really know where in the Temple He'll set up shop, but I suppose he has options. 8)

4. Zechariah 8:20-23 Isaiah 66:7-24 (I'll find more if you need them :wink:

I should also add that I didn't even know what the Scofield Bible was until my early 30's, so I was hardly marinated in it's dispensational leanings. I read that paraphrased Living Bible for most of my life till then, reading a whole bunch of different versions till I settled on my current one (NIV, NASV, etc.). I just happen to like the word changes it makes to the original KJV and the helpful footnotes and concordance, maps, etc. I hear the Ryrie study Bible is good too. :wink:

So, what's my grade here, Doc? :lol:

_________________
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 Jun 04, 2011 4:37 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
mikethom1 wrote:
goalieman wrote:
My answer is yes to your last question, though it's clear that God knew in advance that this was not going to happen. If not theorectically possible that the Jewish leaders could have accepted the kingdom that Jesus offered (with Christ ruling over that kingdom, not them of course), then why offer that kingdom at all?

I think where we might be talking past each other here is that I don't think Scofield is suggesting that it was just the outward aspect of the kingdom that the Pharisees were rejecting, as it was obvious that they were rejecting the spiritual essense as well. Hope that helps!


Goalieman – Just to be clear… I was not asking whether you feel it was theoretically possible for all of the Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah at His first coming. I assume that anyone would say that that was theoretically possible. What I wanted to know was what the result of that acceptance would have been. In other words...

What would have happened if all of the Jews who were alive at the time when Jesus first came would have accepted Him as the promised Savior?

Would that have resulted in the immediate establishment of a glorious earthly kingdom?

From your previous answer, it seems that your answer is yes, but I wanted to be perfectly clear on this.


I guess it's like asking if the Chicago Cubs won the World Series, what would happen............but it'll never happen! :lol:

But seriously, my answer is yes, the kingdom would have been established, but it's clear that God foreknew that was not going to be the case, so it's kind of a mute point. Clearly the Old Testament predicted that the Messiah would be "cut off" as Daniel 9:26 says, so the Jews acceptence of their promised Messiah was not to be. But it was also clear that the Jewish religious leaders should have known who Jesus was based upon their prophets and the miracles He did, but they would not have Him to rule over them. Some believe that is why they are uniquely guilty of the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but that's a whole other discussion.

This same question is often poised as to Adam & Eve and did they have the ability to not sin by simply doing as God told them to and not disobey his one commandment to them to not eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge. One would have to say yes, they could have not eaten from that tree and therefore would not have been in need of a future saviour, but God already foreknew that they would disobey him, so his plan of salvation for mankind was already in place before Adan & Eve were created.

Hopefully I've clarified my point here. :)

_________________
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 Jun 04, 2011 5:24 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:29 am
Posts: 136
Likes: 1
Liked: 18
goalieman wrote:
I guess it's like asking if the Chicago Cubs won the World Series, what would happen............but it'll never happen! :lol:

But seriously, my answer is yes, the kingdom would have been established, but it's clear that God foreknew that was not going to be the case, so it's kind of a mute point. Clearly the Old Testament predicted that the Messiah would be "cut off" as Daniel 9:26 says, so the Jews acceptence of their promised Messiah was not to be. But it was also clear that the Jewish religious leaders should have known who Jesus was based upon their prophets and the miracles He did, but they would not have Him to rule over them. Some believe that is why they are uniquely guilty of the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but that's a whole other discussion.

This same question is often poised as to Adam & Eve and did they have the ability to not sin by simply doing as God told them to and not disobey his one commandment to them to not eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge. One would have to say yes, they could have not eaten from that tree and therefore would not have been in need of a future saviour, but God already foreknew that they would disobey him, so his plan of salvation for mankind was already in place before Adan & Eve were created.

Hopefully I've clarified my point here. :)


Thanks, Goalieman. My questions may seem irrelevant, but your answers do give insight into your beliefs.

So let me see now. You are saying that if all of the Jews had accepted Jesus as the Savior when He first came to earth, He would have set up a glorious earthly kingdom at that time. But the majority of the Jews would not accept Him as their Messiah-King. And that is why the glorious earthly kingdom was put on hold, so to speak, until Jesus comes again. (If I am stating any of this incorrectly, please correct me.)

Here’s another question:

If all the Jews had accepted Jesus as their Messiah when He first came to earth, would He have had to die, or could He have set up His glorious earthly kingdom without having to die?

In other words, what relationship, if any, is there between the death of Christ and the establishing of His glorious earthly kingdom? Was the death of Christ a tragic detour on the road to His glorious earthly kingdom, or were His death and the establishing of the kingdom somehow connected?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 7:58 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
mikethom1 wrote:
goalieman wrote:
I guess it's like asking if the Chicago Cubs won the World Series, what would happen............but it'll never happen! :lol:

But seriously, my answer is yes, the kingdom would have been established, but it's clear that God foreknew that was not going to be the case, so it's kind of a mute point. Clearly the Old Testament predicted that the Messiah would be "cut off" as Daniel 9:26 says, so the Jews acceptence of their promised Messiah was not to be. But it was also clear that the Jewish religious leaders should have known who Jesus was based upon their prophets and the miracles He did, but they would not have Him to rule over them. Some believe that is why they are uniquely guilty of the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but that's a whole other discussion.

This same question is often poised as to Adam & Eve and did they have the ability to not sin by simply doing as God told them to and not disobey his one commandment to them to not eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge. One would have to say yes, they could have not eaten from that tree and therefore would not have been in need of a future saviour, but God already foreknew that they would disobey him, so his plan of salvation for mankind was already in place before Adan & Eve were created.

Hopefully I've clarified my point here. :)


Thanks, Goalieman. My questions may seem irrelevant, but your answers do give insight into your beliefs.

So let me see now. You are saying that if all of the Jews had accepted Jesus as the Savior when He first came to earth, He would have set up a glorious earthly kingdom at that time. But the majority of the Jews would not accept Him as their Messiah-King. And that is why the glorious earthly kingdom was put on hold, so to speak, until Jesus comes again. (If I am stating any of this incorrectly, please correct me.)

Here’s another question:

If all the Jews had accepted Jesus as their Messiah when He first came to earth, would He have had to die, or could He have set up His glorious earthly kingdom without having to die?

In other words, what relationship, if any, is there between the death of Christ and the establishing of His glorious earthly kingdom? Was the death of Christ a tragic detour on the road to His glorious earthly kingdom, or were His death and the establishing of the kingdom somehow connected?


Thanks for carrying on so ably, Gman! I give you an A+ for quick answers, well researched!

I am still waiting for my pastor to get back with his answers, too, regarding the Luke passage and the nature of the kingdom of God.

Meanwhile, I still support the modern nation of Israel for many reasons I wish I could explain better. It's not that we love Him less for loving them more. Quite the opposite. My Savior is a Jewish man, and God's Son. My favorite book was written by Jews.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 412 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 21  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


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