By the way, Inter is English your second language? I'm a fairly good reader, however, I can barely decipher anything you have to say? Why is that? There must be some robust answer you can contrive?
ECT Question to D'ists about a future destruction of Israel
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
I'll bet even he has a problem understanding what he posts? Maybe, he's looking for an above average "Interpreter?"
Interpretation??
Interplanner
Well-known member
If you read the old covenant/testament outside of Christ, you would expect a kingdom on earth where Israel is triumphant etc. That would be reading it 'kata sarka' "in the ordinary sense" or "in the flesh" 2 Cor 5:16. But we (as Christians, neverminding what those in Judaism do) "do so no longer." We now read everything without the veil and in Christ.
Likewise in Heb 5, they had absorbed some of the elements of being a Christian--beliefs about baptism, the end of the world, being repentant--that's all great, but elementary. What the Christian message truly is about is what has taken place in Christ, that the previous covenant/system could never accomplish. "The point of what we are saying is that we do have this kind of high priest"--the old is gone/going, and only Christ will remain.
And if you received this letter at that time, you were reading it to risk your life. The opposition was relentless. Cp. Lk 21:16+.
The letter never hints of anything permanent or Judaic on this earth, with even some additional slights after the main argument is quite clear, such as 13:10. "All created things" will be removed, lost. Only the unshakeable kingdom of Christ is to remain.
Likewise in Heb 5, they had absorbed some of the elements of being a Christian--beliefs about baptism, the end of the world, being repentant--that's all great, but elementary. What the Christian message truly is about is what has taken place in Christ, that the previous covenant/system could never accomplish. "The point of what we are saying is that we do have this kind of high priest"--the old is gone/going, and only Christ will remain.
And if you received this letter at that time, you were reading it to risk your life. The opposition was relentless. Cp. Lk 21:16+.
The letter never hints of anything permanent or Judaic on this earth, with even some additional slights after the main argument is quite clear, such as 13:10. "All created things" will be removed, lost. Only the unshakeable kingdom of Christ is to remain.
Interplanner
Well-known member
What is difficult about understanding the following historical moment:
In 1805 English Pastor Holford has sharpened his material on the destruction of Jerusalem as predicted by Christ in numerous passages. He did this because of the threat of the teaching and writing of Thomas Payne. Holford made the loop of several churches throughout London and England expounding on what the DofJ meant, with the purpose of undercutting the cynicism of Payne. Holford won the day. People not only did not buy Payne's material; it was even declared illegal for him to publish. He went and tried in America as I recall.
I'm not advocating state-run printing presses, but obviously this was a major blow to liberals and Leftism and skepticism.
It is an utter paradox then, that D'ism becomes popular shortly after this, that uniformitarianism gets going a generation later--not daring to deal with NT history but rather with 'millions of years ago' geology. And then somehow the plain, ordinary knowledge of the DofJ all but disappears. So that by the 1960s in America it was pretty much a taboo (like alcohol) for people to know anything about Josephus. And to think Christ was speaking of the DofJ in those same passages is now 'insanity' like how you refer to me.
I think part of the reason you can't understand me is because you are engrossed in a system and evaluate everything in terms of what that system says, rather than history--NT history first, and then church history. You are expecting one thing and the reality is quite another.
In 1805 English Pastor Holford has sharpened his material on the destruction of Jerusalem as predicted by Christ in numerous passages. He did this because of the threat of the teaching and writing of Thomas Payne. Holford made the loop of several churches throughout London and England expounding on what the DofJ meant, with the purpose of undercutting the cynicism of Payne. Holford won the day. People not only did not buy Payne's material; it was even declared illegal for him to publish. He went and tried in America as I recall.
I'm not advocating state-run printing presses, but obviously this was a major blow to liberals and Leftism and skepticism.
It is an utter paradox then, that D'ism becomes popular shortly after this, that uniformitarianism gets going a generation later--not daring to deal with NT history but rather with 'millions of years ago' geology. And then somehow the plain, ordinary knowledge of the DofJ all but disappears. So that by the 1960s in America it was pretty much a taboo (like alcohol) for people to know anything about Josephus. And to think Christ was speaking of the DofJ in those same passages is now 'insanity' like how you refer to me.
I think part of the reason you can't understand me is because you are engrossed in a system and evaluate everything in terms of what that system says, rather than history--NT history first, and then church history. You are expecting one thing and the reality is quite another.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:chuckle:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
We believe the words on the pages of the Bible. Period.
Give up skepticism, and become a believer.
You'd have said as much to Paul...and deserve a similar response.
Acts 17:19 And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? 17:20 For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. 17:21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.) 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. 17:32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.
17:33 So Paul departed from among them.
"Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne so that in eternity, '...never the twain, Israel and church, shall meet." Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, Dallas Seminary Press, 1975), Vol. 4. pp. 315-323...
Charles C. Ryrie (born 1925) says:
"basic promise of Dispensationalism is two purposes of God expressed
in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction
throughout eternity." Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today,1966, pp.44-45.
This is man trying to make changes in the doctrine of Christ on Old Covenant Israel.
The men who created this tradition of men taught that God now has two peoples, Old Covenant Israel and the Capital C Church - different from the mall c church from ekklesia, the meeting, assembly or congregation.
There is one body of Christ, one fold and one group who are the elect of God, not two, Old Covenant Israel and the Capital C Church. Israel remade in Christ is the small c church, the ekklesia as the meeting, assembly or congregation. William Tyndale translated ekklesia consistently as congregation, except for Acts 14: 13 and Acts 19: 37 where he used churche, meaning a pagan place of worship. Tyndale broke with Catholic tradition and used congregation for ekklesia something which might have contributed to his being strangled at the stake by the Catholics, in their Capital C Church.
Charles C. Ryrie (born 1925) says:
"basic promise of Dispensationalism is two purposes of God expressed
in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction
throughout eternity." Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today,1966, pp.44-45.
This is man trying to make changes in the doctrine of Christ on Old Covenant Israel.
The men who created this tradition of men taught that God now has two peoples, Old Covenant Israel and the Capital C Church - different from the mall c church from ekklesia, the meeting, assembly or congregation.
There is one body of Christ, one fold and one group who are the elect of God, not two, Old Covenant Israel and the Capital C Church. Israel remade in Christ is the small c church, the ekklesia as the meeting, assembly or congregation. William Tyndale translated ekklesia consistently as congregation, except for Acts 14: 13 and Acts 19: 37 where he used churche, meaning a pagan place of worship. Tyndale broke with Catholic tradition and used congregation for ekklesia something which might have contributed to his being strangled at the stake by the Catholics, in their Capital C Church.
For over the 100th time, sweetie-explain how when you discover objective truth, i.e., "how old" a "belief system" is, determines it's veracity. Not a peep from this little arms weasel.
Craigie: I did not see this stuff about "Jesus" being a Savior for a long time. Therefore, He is not.
Wow, Craigie!!! We had not though of that spam recommendation, which you throw up on every third post-"start believing what the Bible actually says." Please teach us, wimpy, loser boy....Please?
How long have you been in your "invented," satanic, anti-Semite cult, unemployed Craigie?
Satan's little arms weasel, Craigie Tellalie
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...sm-so-impossible/page41&p=4703858#post4703858
“The Apostle Paul was the biggest anti-Semite there ever was:”-Tellalie , post 611
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...sm-so-impossible/page41&p=4703858#post4703858
“The Apostle Paul was the biggest anti-Semite there ever was:”-Tellalie , post 611
Here's another...
Acts 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: 2:15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Tet's crowd would not have been those described in verse 41.
Too much wine of the wisdom of men read as some sort of a new wine in others by such fools.
Acts 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: 2:15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Tet's crowd would not have been those described in verse 41.
Too much wine of the wisdom of men read as some sort of a new wine in others by such fools.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Danoh wrote:
Thus, their preaching to Israel that should the nation repent, things could then move forward - as Prophesied.
You're actually pretty close here Danoh, if you just wouldn't deal with Israel as being 100% one way or another. The ones that repented and embraced this Messiah did go on to work in his mission. The ones that did not were slaughtered in the revolt, like Lk 23 said.
I suggest you stop using 100% this and that because the answer will not be found in whole races or ethnes anymore. That is definitely had to unlearn from D'ism. Everything is now on the basis of belief--or not. Rom 11.
Thus, their preaching to Israel that should the nation repent, things could then move forward - as Prophesied.
You're actually pretty close here Danoh, if you just wouldn't deal with Israel as being 100% one way or another. The ones that repented and embraced this Messiah did go on to work in his mission. The ones that did not were slaughtered in the revolt, like Lk 23 said.
I suggest you stop using 100% this and that because the answer will not be found in whole races or ethnes anymore. That is definitely had to unlearn from D'ism. Everything is now on the basis of belief--or not. Rom 11.
Problem is you have failed to understand Paul's quoting of the OT where he does.
In the following, for example, only on its' surface, or first impression reading, does it appear that verse 25 is a reference to the parties mentioned in verse 24 as being a fulfilment of verse 25.
Romans 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 9: 25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
It is that kind of consistent misreading into a thing in that way on your part, that has us at odds with one another as to each our respective understanding of these kinds of issues.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Right, Gentiles does not mean Gentiles. It is an allegory. Right. Just ask Danoh. Right. (Gosh, I wonder if Gentiles is used any where else in Paul? What a concept!)
Interplanner
Well-known member
Back to the O?
What difference does it make if Lk 21 happens in 66AD+ if you think there are other passages that quite positively say that there will be a Judaic theocracy episode in the upcoming "movie" called "The Future 2nd coming and all the eschatology details and answers to the mysteries of the Rev and other mysteries"?
What difference does it make if Lk 21 happens in 66AD+ if you think there are other passages that quite positively say that there will be a Judaic theocracy episode in the upcoming "movie" called "The Future 2nd coming and all the eschatology details and answers to the mysteries of the Rev and other mysteries"?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
When combobulated with the lighted camel of Gen 24:64, we can see that Mt24A coincides with the red dirt fallacies of 2P2P and in conjunction with Eph 2C and Rev21D, we can assuredly know that the NHNE event will not be counteracted by Holfordian resistance.
Interplanner
Well-known member
You've burned out a fuse and need to get one. My car did what you are now doing and all it took was a fuse.