ECT A bit of a theologic test

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Ktoyou thinks I'm boring, and need a new sound.

Last month in an evangelistic conversation, I was explaining to a person that the dual miracle or claim of Mk 2's opening scene has a way of providing internal proof of the NT. Here is how:

Jesus cross-claimed he would raise a paralytic when he claimed to be the Son of God. If the healing had not taken place, THAT would have been the news about Jesus the Flop all through Judea. There is no such news. In less than a few scenes later, the leaders of Judaism find they must stop him, even kill him. We never hear that they debunked anything he did, nor things the masses said he did. The 'problem' is always that he did them.

The person I was talking to thought they had me cornered because I was saying that if Juliet hadn't taken her life in the final scene of Romeo and Juliet, the prior story would fall apart. But he was way too late (anachronistic) with his counter by comparison with the gospel accounts. He would have had to say 'the family conflict between the Montagues and the _____s did not really exist.' Not 'Juliet took her life out of nowhere.' But the family conflict was there and it shapes the whole story of R&J just as the fears of Judaism's leaders shape the story of Christ.

If the skeptic was right, the debunking of Jesus would have been the story. It is not.

But I mention this here, because this goes on into the issue between Judaism and the Gospel. If D'ists were right, there should have been no conflict between Judaism and Christ. I keep hearing their loud attempts to affirm massive support for the law by Christ and by Paul, to the point that the conflict between the Gospel and Judaism is nearly non-existent.

I believe along with all its other mistakes D'ism is mistaken as to what a script writer would call backstory. D'ism is like one of those things you find in a movie that could not have been said or done in the time period in which the story is taking place. They are this way about Rom 11 and they are this way about Heb 9, both of which they think are massive support for Israel in its land and Judaism operating again. As though the letter to Hebrews had said nothing about the end of the previous covenant (treating the new/eternal covenant as a 2nd chance for the 1st to work!), and as though Rom 11 had said nothing about the faith-based community that is the one that will be saved (justified from sin). It is asinine.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
Ktoyou thinks I'm boring, and need a new sound.

Last month in an evangelistic conversation, I was explaining to a person that the dual miracle or claim of Mk 2's opening scene has a way of providing internal proof of the NT. Here is how:

Jesus cross-claimed he would raise a paralytic when he claimed to be the Son of God. If the healing had not taken place, THAT would have been the news about Jesus the Flop all through Judea. There is no such news. In less than a few scenes later, the leaders of Judaism find they must stop him, even kill him. We never hear that they debunked anything he did, nor things the masses said he did. The 'problem' is always that he did them.

The person I was talking to thought they had me cornered because I was saying that if Juliet hadn't taken her life in the final scene of Romeo and Juliet, the prior story would fall apart. But he was way too late (anachronistic) with his counter by comparison with the gospel accounts. He would have had to say 'the family conflict between the Montagues and the _____s did not really exist.' Not 'Juliet took her life out of nowhere.' But the family conflict was there and it shapes the whole story of R&J just as the fears of Judaism's leaders shape the story of Christ.

If the skeptic was right, the debunking of Jesus would have been the story. It is not.

But I mention this here, because this goes on into the issue between Judaism and the Gospel. If D'ists were right, there should have been no conflict between Judaism and Christ. I keep hearing their loud attempts to affirm massive support for the law by Christ and by Paul, to the point that the conflict between the Gospel and Judaism is nearly non-existent.

I believe along with all its other mistakes D'ism is mistaken as to what a script writer would call backstory. D'ism is like one of those things you find in a movie that could not have been said or done in the time period in which the story is taking place. They are this way about Rom 11 and they are this way about Heb 9, both of which they think are massive support for Israel in its land and Judaism operating again. As though the letter to Hebrews had said nothing about the end of the previous covenant (treating the new/eternal covenant as a 2nd chance for the 1st to work!), and as though Rom 11 had said nothing about the faith-based community that is the one that will be saved (justified from sin). It is asinine.
Click to expand...

What an OVER relying on the traditions of men confused individual you remain about the most Basic of Operating Principles or Basic Rules of Thumb as Guideline as to this issue...

The "Judaism" of the Law and the Prophets...

Ezra 5:8 Be it known unto the king, that we went into the province of Judea, to the house of the great God, which is builded with great stones, and timber is laid in the walls, and this work goeth fast on, and prospereth in their hands. 5:9 Then asked we those elders, and said unto them thus, Who commanded you to build this house, and to make up these walls? 5:10 We asked their names also, to certify thee, that we might write the names of the men that were the chief of them. 5:11 And thus they returned us answer, saying, We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth, and build the house that was builded these many years ago, which a great king of Israel builded and set up. 5:12 But after that our fathers had provoked the God of heaven unto wrath, he gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, the Chaldean, who destroyed this house, and carried the people away into Babylon. 5:13 But in the first year of Cyrus the king of Babylon the same king Cyrus made a decree to build this house of God. 5:14 And the vessels also of gold and silver of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took out of the temple that was in Jerusalem, and brought them into the temple of Babylon, those did Cyrus the king take out of the temple of Babylon, and they were delivered unto one, whose name was Sheshbazzar, whom he had made governor; 5:15 And said unto him, Take these vessels, go, carry them into the temple that is in Jerusalem, and let the house of God be builded in his place. 5:16 Then came the same Sheshbazzar, and laid the foundation of the house of God which is in Jerusalem: and since that time even until now hath it been in building, and yet it is not finished. 5:17 Now therefore, if it seem good to the king, let there be search made in the king's treasure house, which is there at Babylon, whether it be so, that a decree was made of Cyrus the king to build this house of God at Jerusalem, and let the king send his pleasure to us concerning this matter.

The conflict was between that - the Judaism of the Law and the Prophets (that the preaching of the Kingdom had merely been a further a extension of) - and the Judaism the Scribes and the Pharisees had falsely turned the Judaism of the Law and the Prophets into...

This...

John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

In contrast to...

John 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

And this...

John 9:28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.

And this contrast...

John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Here that conflict is, again...

Matthew 15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Repeatedly, that is the conflict - between two Judaisms...

:doh:

Acts 17:11,12
 
CherubRam

CherubRam

New member
Interplanner said:
Ktoyou thinks I'm boring, and need a new sound.

Last month in an evangelistic conversation, I was explaining to a person that the dual miracle or claim of Mk 2's opening scene has a way of providing internal proof of the NT. Here is how:

Jesus cross-claimed he would raise a paralytic when he claimed to be the Son of God. If the healing had not taken place, THAT would have been the news about Jesus the Flop all through Judea. There is no such news. In less than a few scenes later, the leaders of Judaism find they must stop him, even kill him. We never hear that they debunked anything he did, nor things the masses said he did. The 'problem' is always that he did them.

The person I was talking to thought they had me cornered because I was saying that if Juliet hadn't taken her life in the final scene of Romeo and Juliet, the prior story would fall apart. But he was way too late (anachronistic) with his counter by comparison with the gospel accounts. He would have had to say 'the family conflict between the Montagues and the _____s did not really exist.' Not 'Juliet took her life out of nowhere.' But the family conflict was there and it shapes the whole story of R&J just as the fears of Judaism's leaders shape the story of Christ.

If the skeptic was right, the debunking of Jesus would have been the story. It is not.

But I mention this here, because this goes on into the issue between Judaism and the Gospel. If D'ists were right, there should have been no conflict between Judaism and Christ. I keep hearing their loud attempts to affirm massive support for the law by Christ and by Paul, to the point that the conflict between the Gospel and Judaism is nearly non-existent.

I believe along with all its other mistakes D'ism is mistaken as to what a script writer would call backstory. D'ism is like one of those things you find in a movie that could not have been said or done in the time period in which the story is taking place. They are this way about Rom 11 and they are this way about Heb 9, both of which they think are massive support for Israel in its land and Judaism operating again. As though the letter to Hebrews had said nothing about the end of the previous covenant (treating the new/eternal covenant as a 2nd chance for the 1st to work!), and as though Rom 11 had said nothing about the faith-based community that is the one that will be saved (justified from sin). It is asinine.
Click to expand...

Hebrews 7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:

“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”[a]

18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
‘You are a priest forever.’”

22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.
 
N

northwye

New member
"You start too many threads."

The regular dfispensationalist posters here do outnumber the regular posting defenders of the Gospel of Christ against what is called the Gainsayers in the King James Version for Titus 1: 9.

The Geneva Bible for Titus 1: 9 says "Holding fast the faithful word according to doctrine, that he also may be able to exhort with wholesome doctrine, and convince them that say against it. " I like this.

Lets see what the Tyndale New Testament says. "and such as cleveth unto the true word of doctrine that he may be able to exhort with wholesome learning and to improve them that say against it."

The Geneva Bible tends to follow the Tyndale New Testament in general, while the King James uses Gainsayers for ἀντιλέγω instead of say against.

Expose and convict them that speak against the Gospel of Christ is in the spirit of becoming bold as Paul and Barnabas became in Acts 13: 45-46 in correcting the contradicting and blaspheming of the Gospel of Christ.

The dispensationalists who contradict the Gospel of Christ here may gain some confidence in their doctrines and in their dialectic game from outnumbering us. Apparently in the evangelical churches the dispensationalists do outnumber those who defend the Gospel, and may think that this "proves" their doctrines.

Dispensationalists tend to reject or ignore the doctrine of the remnant. Its the remnant which in our time of apostasy is faithful to Acts 13: 45-46 and Titus 1: 9-11 - not the multitude in the churches.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
CherubRam said:
Hebrews 7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:

“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”[a]

18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
‘You are a priest forever.’”

22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.
Click to expand...






If they dont read the Bible on their own, why would they read it posted here?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
...and with your great mental powers, what is the backstory or existing "family conflict" of the gospels that makes or breaks the story?
 
Nihilo

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Click to expand...
What promise?
 
Tambora

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Nihilo said:
What promise?
Click to expand...
Don't mention land to IP.
It infuriates him that GOD promised Israel land.
And that the new covenant was promised to Israel & Judah infuriates him even more!
IP is really into replacement theology.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Thanks to Tambora, I can put this one away with this outline:

1, The excitement of Acts 2 was that the 'pouring out of the Spirit' had taken place. This was a gift to Messiah from the Father for Messiah's travail. The same thing is said in Eph 4 about the gifts given to men when captivity was taken captive by Messiah. This pouring out is also right in the middle of 'restoration' prophecy (in Ezekiel for ex) which D'ists think are to be taken so literally. Peter is saying it is fulfilled.

3, Peter continues to be just as enthused in ch 3 that this age in which Israel first was to be missionaries to the world was underway. Obviously this was underway with an event like Pentecost. But also it was what they had been taught was the promise by Christ (Lk 24, Acts 1). AKA the power of the kingdom that they had asked about. They NOW understood what the kingdom meant. 'Power' (authority to make declarations about things that were established by God's hand) was kingdom vocabulary; Jesus had been made Lord and Christ as David's vision had said, Acts 2:30-31.

3, This "unlikely" combination of Israel's destiny and the mission outreach through God-enabled gifts is also why Gal 3 says the Spirit is the promise, 3:14, where the grammar is saying that the Spirit is what was promised. This is why we have Peter referring to the Spirit and to the promise of including the nations in Acts 3 at the same time; they really are one manifestation.

4, Clearly, it has nothing to do with the land of Israel nor dependent on the worship system of Judaism, except as a preparatory illustration. This continues to be the case when Paul says all the same things in Acts 13's official sample sermon, and in his defense in Acts 26 where the hope of Israel is already realized and is the mission of Christ, not the thing they expect to happen by worshiping day and night at the temple. The obtaining of the land through Joshua is now a picture from Israel's past of obtaining rest in Christ from the fear of death through one's sins; remove that doctrine from hebrews and half of it is gone.

5, D'ism is carnal and materialist, and happy to be so. It is not even remotely aware of the glorious truth as it in Christ. It is as though just a restored land would have resulted in any of this!

6, D'ism is that way (#5) just when the picture for the land of Israel could not have been worse. Rumors of total scorching by Rome were bouncing off of the mountains and desert stones since 6 AD when a general rebellion was started after the Census, Acts 5:37. "Secular" records tell us about that rebellion and the others, and Dan 8:13 said a "rebellion that desolates" was coming, but it is a 'sin' in D'ism to know such things EVEN WHEN 'SECULAR' HISTORY IS REFERRED TO IN THE BIBLE.

7, The new covenant launched at the last supper is for all people, and is found in the body and blood of Christ, but Christ was saying that much as far back as the beginning of his work anyway, because it is back at the beginning of Genesis. All the passages on the new covenant confirm that it has nothing to do with the land, and totally about the redemption from sin and death that is in Christ Jesus, Heb 8-10. Tam does not realize she is part of a Goebellian effort to snow those facts. No D'ist here has answered why Heb 9:15 confines the new covenant to a question of how sin is erased. STP said that that was "made-up" to think so.

8, There is a RT problem addressed in the NT and we should stick with that, not the 19th century one. It is in Gal 3:17 and the Judaizers had replaced the Promise of the Spirit to Reach the Nations--they had replaced THAT with the Law; or thought the mission to the nations would happen through the Law, Mt 23:15. Paul says someone had replaced the Promise and voided it with the Law; it was his career effort to get that straightened out.

Tell that to a D'ist and they have no idea what it is about.
 
N

northwye

New member
I keep thinking in terms of the anti-thesis of I Timothy 6: 20. The idea keeps coming up that the contemporary Marxist Left opposes the American Republic by an anti-thesis just as the dispensationalists oppose the Gospel of Christ by an anti-thesis. Both of these anti-thesis oppositions have their origin in history, although the Marxist opposition has a much shorter history.

That is, the dispensationalist anti-thesis goes all the way back to the Talmudic Judaism of the multitude in the period right before the appearance of Christ and goes on until 70 A.D. Somehow, to dispensationalists, since that Talmudic Judaism is old and appears to have some authority in the Old Testament and is of the multitude, it is that which is their "Truth." Once that "Truth" is set in their minds, they are unable to understand that what Paul is talking about in Galatians 3: 14 - that the promise is of the Spirit through faith - is found in the Old Testament. An example of this is Deuteronomy 10: 16, "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." Deuteronomy 10: 16

And........"And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." Deuteronomy 30: 6

"Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings." Jeremiah 4: 4

You would probably see Marxism as beginning in 1848 with the Communist Manifesto and in 1867 with Das Kapital.

But Marxism is more than a mere political and economic theory. It is philosophical in that it derives from Immanuel Kant, Georg Hegel, Ludwig Feuerbach, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and from the Jacobins of the French Revolution.

In deriving from Hegel's bringing of the philosophy of the dialectic in ancient Greek philosophy into modern philosophy as well as into modern thought and discourse, Marxism is a kind of epistemology. Epistemology is the study of the basis for knowledge, an examination of thought itself. That focus can move toward psychology.

And the Frankfurt School of Marxism did first mix Marx with Freud and later in the U.S, it mixed Marx with American personality and social psychology, especially the Group Dynamics movement, the Encounter Group movement and self psychology.

Marxism made use of social engineers in psychology. Marxism sought to change the culture based upon Biblical Christianity, the family and a type of capitalism which encouraged and allowed a huge number of small businesses to exist.Monopoly capitalism and a financial and corporate ruling elite can have more control than an economic system with a huge number of small business owners.

Marx himself tells us something of what Marxism is about in this statement: "In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for
all time, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx)

Benjamin Bloom, who wrote the two volume book on the Taxonomy
of Educational Goal Objectives, by which all teachers must be
certified, said "“We recognize the point of view that
truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and
fast truths which exist for all time and places.” (Benjamin Bloom, et
al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1, Cognitive Domain)

"Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the
heavenly family, the former must be destroyed (annihilated), in theory
and in practice." Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4

This is the historical basis of the contemporary American Political Correctness movement, which forms the anti-thesis to the U.S. Constitutional Republic.
 
N

northwye

New member
Is this the sentence you are talking about? "Marxism sought to change the culture based upon Biblical Christianity, the family and a type of capitalism which encouraged and allowed a huge number of small businesses to exist."
 
N

northwye

New member
One of the founders of the Frankfuret School of Transformational Marxism, Georg Lukacs, talked about "Abolishment of Culture." Lukacs knew that Christianity had created a dominant culture in the West which made the individual important and that culture saw each individual as being unique, to be honored as such.

Marxism had to get rid of that Christian - and family based - culture which made the individual outstanding, and replace it by a collectivist group oriented culture. Marxism - Transformational Marxism - had to reduce the spiritual power of the Christian Gospel in order to bring in a collectivist group-centered culture.

Lukacs probably had a better understanding of how the doctrines of Christ in the Protestantism of the 19th century created a culture which encouraged individuals and honored them more than does Catholicism.

What effect has dispensationalism had upon the emphasis of the dominant culture on honoring of the individual?

Here is a quote that is more specific about the ideas of Transformational Marxist Georg Lukács (1885-1971): http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/921_frankfurt.html

"Lukacs identified that any political movement capable of bringing
Bolshevism to the West would have to be, in his words, "demonic"; it
would have to "possess the religious power which is capable of filling
the entire soul; a power that characterized primitive Christianity."

They go on to say that "What differentiated the West from Russia,
Lukacs identified, was a
Judeo-Christian cultural matrix which emphasized exactly the
uniqueness and sacredness of the individual which Lukacs abjured. At
its core, the dominant Western ideology maintained that the
individual, through the exercise of his or her reason, could discern
the Divine Will in an unmediated relationship. What was worse, from
Lukacs' standpoint: this reasonable relationship necessarily implied
that the individual could and should change the physical universe in
pursuit of the Good; that Man should have dominion over Nature, as
stated in the Biblical injunction in Genesis. The problem was, that as
long as the individual had the belief—or even the hope of the
belief—that his or her divine spark of reason could solve the problems
facing society, then that society would never reach the state of
hopelessness and alienation which Lukacs recognized as the necessary
prerequisite for socialist revolution."

Does present day dispensationalism have the "the religious power which is capable of filling the entire soul" that Lukacs talked about?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
northwye said:
Is this the sentence you are talking about? "Marxism sought to change the culture based upon Biblical Christianity, the family and a type of capitalism which encouraged and allowed a huge number of small businesses to exist."
Click to expand...


yes, now I'm reading #19
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top