BibleForums Christian Message Board
Bible Talk => Eschatology => Topic started by: JoshuaStone7 on November 19, 2021, 06:43:40 PM
-
It's not just that the abomination of desolation generally wants to get rid of God, but does something specific, like demand to be exalted in the place of God (Antiochus IV). Rome besieged Jerusalem in 70 CE, perhaps that is a good candidate? There were plenty of Christians who fled once they saw the Roman armies, probably with Jesus' words in mind.
I wanted to share something interesting with you, brother.
Question: What role did Jerusalem play in prophecy in 70 CE?
What I am about to explain is; I believe the text tells us that once Christ Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role, Jerusalem and its temple no longer played any part in prophecy.
Let me begin with this scripture,
"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Heb 8:13
In order to take us out of the interpretation business, we must allow the flow of context to remain with the writer. The original writers wrote in streams of concepts rather than using punctuation as we use today.
When Hebrews says, "In speaking of a new covenant," it discusses God's words to Jeremiah in Jer 31:31. Next, the context must remain with the writer when he says, "he makes the first obsolete." Hebrews is saying the first covenant was made obsolete the moment God told Jeremiah there would be a new covenant.
Next, the context must continue in this same timeframe. "And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." This statement must remain in the same time frame as the moment when God speaks to Jeremiah about the new covenant that was to come. Therefore, the old had become obsolete at that moment, and from Jeremiah's time on, the old was ready to vanish away.
-------
The next question we might ask is: When did the old covenant vanish?
"The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning." Heb 9:8 (NIV)
To begin, I do not favor any translation and use many. I prefer using an interlinear; however, in discussions, I generally quote whichever translation best defines the originally intended context within any given text.
With that said, the NIV uses the word functioning for the Greek word stasis, and I would like to share the reason I believe the translators did.
--------
The keyword in Heb 9:8 is "disclosed."
Greek - phaneroó: I make clear (visible, manifest), make known.
So the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been "known, shown, made visible," as long as... Now according to this verse, once that way into the Most Holy Place was made evident, that is the moment the tabernacle ceased functioning. So the question is, when was the way into the Most Holy Place made visible?
The Greek word stasis is a noun, not a verb. It carries the idea of a thing, rather than an action. Then properly, it can also be translated as position. Some translations render this Greek word as standing, and this is a breach of context and the very definition of the Greek word stasis. One only needs to look to our English word stasis and its meaning as an ideological position to understand its meaning within this text.
"The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still in its position." Heb 9:8
Stasis isn't saying the temple is standing as in action, it is standing as in position, as in its position as to its function. This is the context of which it is being spoken of in Hebrews. And this is the reason the NIV uses the term functioning.
-------
However, as absolute proof, we know the way into the Most Holy Place was made evident/visible long before 70 CE, and in fact, at our Lord's sacrifice.
"At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom." Mth 27:51
The way from the Holy Place into the Most Holy was made visible the moment our Lord died faithfully. Therefore Heb 9:8 is saying when Jesus died, and then later ascends to Heaven, the way into the Most Holy was disclosed. We know this because Hebrews continues on and tells us Jesus did in fact fulfill the High Priest role the moment the way into the Most Holy was disclosed.
"But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation." Heb 9:11
The writer of Hebrews is disclosing here he knows the way into the Most Holy Place, and that was Jesus. So by his definition, the tabernacle could not still be in its position at that moment. The physical temple in Jerusalem could no longer have any ideological position within God's plans or prophetic fulfillments.
The writer goes on in great detail on how Christ entered the Most Holy Place.
"He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption." Heb 9:12
So then, one must accept that the writer of Hebrews at that moment knew the way into Heaven, and by extension, since that information was visible, the tabernacle no longer stood in its position as the first.
And by all means, this harmonizes with all Scripture.
-------
"Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second." Heb 10:9
Once Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role, the old covenant was done away with, and true believers were no longer under Law; the law was no longer valid.
"For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!" Rom 6:14,15
-------
This was also the moment a Jew and descendant of Abraham was no longer a matter of genealogy but one of faith. As well as the moment the courtyard, temple, and sacrifices all became the realities found in Christ.
"These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." Col 2:17
"Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham." Gal 3:7
"And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian. For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:25,26
All love...
Joshua
-
I wanted to share something interesting with you, brother.
Question: What role did Jerusalem play in prophecy in 70 CE?
What I am about to explain is; I believe the text tells us that once Christ Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role, Jerusalem and its temple no longer played any part in prophecy.
I'm going to reply at this point because it's important to keep in mind the context of what I said, which you quoted.
To the question, I'd answer: if the flight to Pella as recorded is historically accurate, then whatever we think of the role of Jerusalem in prophecy, what did those early Christians think?
Eusebius reported:
But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. And when those that believed in Christ had come there from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men.
Source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm
There's also Epiphanius:
,7 This sect of Nazoraeans is to be found in Beroea37 near Coelesyria, in the Decapolis near Pella, and in Bashanitis at the place called Cocabe38—Khokhabe in Hebrew. (8) For that was its place of origin, since all the disciples had settled in Pella after their remove from Jerusalem—Christ having told them to abandon Jerusalem and withdraw from it39 because of the siege it was about to undergo. And they settled in Peraea for this reason and, as I said, lived their lives there. It was from this that the Nazoraean sect had its origin.
Source: https://gnosis.study/library/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0/ENG/Epiphanius%20of%20Salamis%20-%20The%20Panarion,%20Book%20I%20(Sects%201-46).pdf, ch 29, 7,7.
But this is all I'm saying. I'm not making any definitive statements on what I think the abomination of desolation is. I'm not decided, and I'm certainly not firmly in the preterist camp. I would say that I'm suspicious of the idea that first-century prophetic utterances weren't relevant to the immediate years following Jesus' resurrection, as well as the idea that those utterances were exhaustively satisfied in those immediate years.
Another thought --
Regarding the broader point you've outlined: could it be possible that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE is the final event regarding Jerusalem, removing it from prophetic consideration going forward? That's a question, not a position. It seems a pretty definitive end though, right?
I will say that Jesus' utterances seem quite clearly to me to obsolete the temple, which was, of course, offensive to the religious Jews of the day.
-
Regarding the broader point you've outlined: could it be possible that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE is the final event regarding Jerusalem, removing it from prophetic consideration going forward? That's a question, not a position. It seems a pretty definitive end though, right?.
Greetings brother,
So, if the temple in Jerusalem ceased functioning the moment Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role, and the Law was done away with, and a Jew became one of faith, and the daily sacrifice became the preaching work; what does that do to prophecies such as in Daniel and Revelation?
"From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days." Dan 12:11
"But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months." Rev 11:2
If these prophecies had not yet been fulfilled before Jesus, then how can they apply to the shadows that Jesus did away with when establishing the realities in Himself? He did away with the Law and shadows that the temple was.
"They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven." Heb 8:5
"These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." Col 2:17
You see what I mean? If the temple and Law ceased through Jesus, prophecy could not apply to that physical temple afterward because it no longer existed after Jesus did away with it, right? Scripture tells us He did away with the first covenant, fulfilled the Law, ceased the temple, etc. If the Israelites had excepted Christ there would have been no further sacrifices at the temple.
Prophecy from the past that had not yet been fulfilled must apply to the realities found in Christ because Christ did away with the previous, right? According to scripture, there was no such thing as a physical temple in Jerusalem after 33 CE. (Of course it still stood, but isn't scripture stating it no longer held any stasis in God's works?)
The real established in Christ:
The daily sacrifice in Heb 13:15,16.
The temple of our bodies 1Cor 3:16.
Jesus put away the Law, to establish the second, faith in Him Heb 10:9.
A Jew is an offspring of Abraham through faith Gal 3:7.
Jesus was the High Priest and entered the true Most Holy.
-------
What was in Jerusalem after Christ Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role?
"Every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist," 1Jhn 4:3
Should we not conclude that the only thing in Jerusalem in 70 CE was an antichrist false religion?
In my humble opinion of course, dear brother...
All love.
Joshua
-
So, if the temple in Jerusalem ceased functioning the moment Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role, and the Law was done away with, and a Jew became one of faith, and the daily sacrifice became the preaching work; what does that do to prophecies such as in Daniel and Revelation?
It depends on how you interpret Daniel and Revelation. The temple in Jerusalem did not "cease functioning" at Jesus' death, though it did render null and void the sacrifices that were offered there, or perhaps redundant. The Law continued to be practiced by Jews that didn't believe in Jesus, but it was, as you indicate, a dead letter. Nothing indicates that Christian Gentiles were "spiritual Jews." To be Jewish is an ethnic designation, and cannot be spiritualized away.
"From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days." Dan 12:11
"But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months." Rev 11:2
If these prophecies had not yet been fulfilled before Jesus, then how can they apply to the shadows that Jesus did away with when establishing the realities in Himself? He did away with the Law and shadows that the temple was.
You need to look at these two prophecies separately, because they are different prophecies. One has to do with the reign of Antiochus 4, whose period of tormenting the Jews was 1290 days.
The prophecy in Rev 11 refers to the temple as a symbol of the heavenly temple, which is what it always was. That symbol was used for worship in the OT under the Law, but in the book of Revelation it is used not for worship, but strictly as a symbol of the heavenly temple, which is God's dwelling among His people.
-
Greetings,
You stated:
Futurists today are irrationally trying to make this about the Reign of Antichrist, and ignore anything that involves less than endtime material. .
I can't tell you how many times and how many forums I have posted this on in the last couple of years. And yet there is no response to it of any merit, because it's the truth! These Christians just don't like to be told different from what they want to believe. But I'm sorry--it's God's truth that matters, and not what we *want* to believe!
I offered merit to a Futurist view, and then I stated I had many Preterist friends, and you didn't correct me. So are you a Preterist, or aren't you?
Well, I guess I'll continue as though you are, and you can correct me or not. But let me correct you on a couple of things you've misunderstood.
I've already posted my reasons, and I haven't heard any rebuttal from you.
While I appreciate your response, you'll just have to allow me time to reply. I was out with the family. ;)
It depends on how you interpret Daniel and Revelation. The temple in Jerusalem did not "cease functioning" at Jesus' death, though it did render null and void the sacrifices that were offered there, or perhaps redundant.
Respectfully, and I do mean with all Christian love: You failed to grasp what I presented.
The temple did indeed "cease functioning" at Jesus' ascension, according to Hebrews. Now we don't have to guess what that means. If we know it stood physically till 70 CE, that means Hebrews could only be talking about the temple's stasis in God's Word.
I mean, does it not say that the temple no longer held any ideological position once Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role? I'm not the one saying it; it's there in Hebrews. There is no other interpretation available. It stood physically till 70 CE, but Hebrews says its status ceased after Jesus. There is only one status it held; its functions as the shadow in God's plans. Right? Then once Jesus established the new temple in His body, you tell me where any prophecy after could apply to a false antichrist religion in Jerusalem in 70 CE.
The Law continued to be practiced by Jews that didn't believe in Jesus, but it was, as you indicate, a dead letter. Nothing indicates that Christian Gentiles were "spiritual Jews." To be Jewish is an ethnic designation, and cannot be spiritualized away.
Was there a single Jew in Jerusalem in 70 CE? What would you say if I said, no? No Jews died in 70 CE.
Could prophecy pertaining to God's people have been fulfilled in 70 CE if no Jews died? Were any Jews killed or "punished" in 70 CE?
I say, no... What do you say?
You need to look at these two prophecies separately, because they are different prophecies. One has to do with the reign of Antiochus 4, whose period of tormenting the Jews was 1290 days.
You assumed I was connecting them as the same event; I never said that. I was just picking two prophecies that first came to mind, which I believe are still future, pertaining to the abomination being set up in the Holy Place and the courtyard being trampled.
Again, is God's Word saying the Holy Place was still there in 70 CE? Hebrews says it was no longer functioning in that stasis after Christ. So.......? Are you saying the temple was still the Holy Place and Most Holy Place in 70 CE in contradiction to Hebrews? Asking for a friend... :P
The prophecy in Rev 11 refers to the temple as a symbol of the heavenly temple, which is what it always was. That symbol was used for worship in the OT under the Law, but in the book of Revelation it is used not for worship, but strictly as a symbol of the heavenly temple, which is God's dwelling among His people.
Well, actually there were two rooms in the sanctuary. Only the Most Holy Place represented Heaven and God's throne. The Holy place was where the priests/elect worked on earth, and the courtyard was where all could come to be clothed in linen.
I could go into great detail on what each item in the sanctuary was a shadow of, but I'm sure you're well familiar with these things. :)
Instead, you want me to read your view and figure out how that rebuts my view?
From what I understand, you are a Preterist, right? I just wanted to know I understood you correctly when you quoted Luke.
You know, if Hebrews says the temple no longer plays any part in God's Word after Jesus, I would think that would be a problem for the Preterist. At least none of my Preterist friends could respond to Hebrews once they understood what it was actually saying.
And if you're not a Preterist, be kind and polite to me, and simply let me know...lol Just take this information I have presented as someone sharing what they have been given through the Holy Spirit. :)
All love... ;)
Joshua
-
It's not just that the abomination of desolation generally wants to get rid of God, but does something specific, like demand to be exalted in the place of God (Antiochus IV). Rome besieged Jerusalem in 70 CE, perhaps that is a good candidate? There were plenty of Christians who fled once they saw the Roman armies, probably with Jesus' words in mind.
I wanted to share something interesting with you, brother.
Question: What role did Jerusalem play in prophecy in 70 CE?
What I am about to explain is; I believe the text tells us that once Christ Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role, Jerusalem and its temple no longer played any part in prophecy.
Let me begin with this scripture,
"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Heb 8:13
In order to take us out of the interpretation business, we must allow the flow of context to remain with the writer. The original writers wrote in streams of concepts rather than using punctuation as we use today.
When Hebrews says, "In speaking of a new covenant," it discusses God's words to Jeremiah in Jer 31:31. Next, the context must remain with the writer when he says, "he makes the first obsolete." Hebrews is saying the first covenant was made obsolete the moment God told Jeremiah there would be a new covenant.
Next, the context must continue in this same timeframe. "And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." This statement must remain in the same time frame as the moment when God speaks to Jeremiah about the new covenant that was to come. Therefore, the old had become obsolete at that moment, and from Jeremiah's time on, the old was ready to vanish away.
-------
The next question we might ask is: When did the old covenant vanish?
"The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning." Heb 9:8 (NIV)
To begin, I do not favor any translation and use many. I prefer using an interlinear; however, in discussions, I generally quote whichever translation best defines the originally intended context within any given text.
With that said, the NIV uses the word functioning for the Greek word stasis, and I would like to share the reason I believe the translators did.
--------
The keyword in Heb 9:8 is "disclosed."
Greek - phaneroó: I make clear (visible, manifest), make known.
So the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been "known, shown, made visible," as long as... Now according to this verse, once that way into the Most Holy Place was made evident, that is the moment the tabernacle ceased functioning. So the question is, when was the way into the Most Holy Place made visible?
The Greek word stasis is a noun, not a verb. It carries the idea of a thing, rather than an action. Then properly, it can also be translated as position. Some translations render this Greek word as standing, and this is a breach of context and the very definition of the Greek word stasis. One only needs to look to our English word stasis and its meaning as an ideological position to understand its meaning within this text.
"The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still in its position." Heb 9:8
Stasis isn't saying the temple is standing as in action, it is standing as in position, as in its position as to its function. This is the context of which it is being spoken of in Hebrews. And this is the reason the NIV uses the term functioning.
-------
However, as absolute proof, we know the way into the Most Holy Place was made evident/visible long before 70 CE, and in fact, at our Lord's sacrifice.
"At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom." Mth 27:51
The way from the Holy Place into the Most Holy was made visible the moment our Lord died faithfully. Therefore Heb 9:8 is saying when Jesus died, and then later ascends to Heaven, the way into the Most Holy was disclosed. We know this because Hebrews continues on and tells us Jesus did in fact fulfill the High Priest role the moment the way into the Most Holy was disclosed.
"But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation." Heb 9:11
The writer of Hebrews is disclosing here he knows the way into the Most Holy Place, and that was Jesus. So by his definition, the tabernacle could not still be in its position at that moment. The physical temple in Jerusalem could no longer have any ideological position within God's plans or prophetic fulfillments.
The writer goes on in great detail on how Christ entered the Most Holy Place.
"He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption." Heb 9:12
So then, one must accept that the writer of Hebrews at that moment knew the way into Heaven, and by extension, since that information was visible, the tabernacle no longer stood in its position as the first.
And by all means, this harmonizes with all Scripture.
-------
"Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second." Heb 10:9
Once Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role, the old covenant was done away with, and true believers were no longer under Law; the law was no longer valid.
"For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!" Rom 6:14,15
-------
This was also the moment a Jew and descendant of Abraham was no longer a matter of genealogy but one of faith. As well as the moment the courtyard, temple, and sacrifices all became the realities found in Christ.
"These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." Col 2:17
"Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham." Gal 3:7
"And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian. For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:25,26
All love...
Joshua
Since you want me to answer this post in this thread here it is again:
Let me just take a guess--you think that because Christ fulfilled the Law and the temple at his death that no NT prophecy can involve the physical temple, including its destruction in 70 AD? If that's what you think, it wouldn't make sense to me, because Jesus specifically said this would happen as a *punishment* to the Jewish People for not properly obeying God. If they had properly followed the Law they would've accepted Christ's death for their sins, and there would've been no further need to make sacrifices on the altar in Jerusalem.
Jesus said the temple had become hypocritical and was about to be torn down. Knowing that many Jews were ignorant of what they were doing he was not willing to destroy the temple and Jerusalem immediately. He gave time for the Gospel to be preached as a continuing warning to them. But he knew they wouldn't listen, and so prophesied that it would all be torn down.
Since this is what the Olivet Discourse records, no amount of logic can render this otherwise, in my opinion. It says what it says. None of this takes away from the fact Jesus was the true heavenly temple, and the fulfillment of the Law.
-
Since you want me to answer this post in this thread here it is again:
No, I didn't. I was directing you to my response to you above in post #4 that you've clearly missed...
You can delete your post #5 here, and post #29 in Chronology.
-
Greetings brother,
So, if the temple in Jerusalem ceased functioning the moment Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role, and the Law was done away with, and a Jew became one of faith, and the daily sacrifice became the preaching work; what does that do to prophecies such as in Daniel and Revelation?
"From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days." Dan 12:11
"But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months." Rev 11:2
If these prophecies had not yet been fulfilled before Jesus, then how can they apply to the shadows that Jesus did away with when establishing the realities in Himself? He did away with the Law and shadows that the temple was.
"They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven." Heb 8:5
"These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." Col 2:17
You see what I mean? If the temple and Law ceased through Jesus, prophecy could not apply to that physical temple afterward because it no longer existed after Jesus did away with it, right? Scripture tells us He did away with the first covenant, fulfilled the Law, ceased the temple, etc. If the Israelites had excepted Christ there would have been no further sacrifices at the temple.
I'm not sure that I do see what you mean, but if I understand what you're saying then I don't find it compelling. Christians may well have been aware of the temple's newfound inefficacy, but that doesn't mean religious Jews would have taken the same view. They would have continued worshipping at the temple up until its destruction in 70 CE. It was still a physical structure up until then. It existed, and it was in use. Would they have viewed the Roman siege as a, or the, abomination of desecration? The destruction of the temple was no trivial event. (I'm aware you're not suggesting the temple wasn't physically present; I'm emphasising that it was and that it was is relevant.)
So, to your question "then how can they apply to the shadows that Jesus did away with when establishing the realities in Himself?" I would consider whether it's appropriate to consider those things that Jesus "did away with" as specifically, shadows removed from relevance/prophetic relevance.
You may need to clarify.
Prophecy from the past that had not yet been fulfilled must apply to the realities found in Christ because Christ did away with the previous, right?
Why should that be the case? Wouldn't this have made those past prophecies unintelligible to those who received them (or is the suggestion that those past prophecies were misunderstood as applying to X when really they applied to Y, which would not have been something the recipients could have known)?
Should we not conclude that the only thing in Jerusalem in 70 CE was an antichrist false religion?
I don't think I would, no.
-
Since you want me to answer this post in this thread here it is again:
No, I didn't. I was directing you to my response to you above in post #4 that you've clearly missed...
You can delete your post #5 here, and post #29 in Chronology.
I'm ensuring that you see I *have indeed* answered, even though you claim I've "missed" it. I haven't missed anything. But you are not even trying to answer my points, even though I've posted them in two different threads!
All this talk is minutia to me--just tell me what your response is to my points, or admit you're disinterested. But if you're disinterested than don't cover the subject.
-
Since you want me to answer this post in this thread here it is again:
No, I didn't. I was directing you to my response to you above in post #4 that you've clearly missed...
You can delete your post #5 here, and post #29 in Chronology.
I'm ensuring that you see I *have indeed* answered, even though you claim I've "missed" it. I haven't missed anything. But you are not even trying to answer my points, even though I've posted them in two different threads!
All this talk is minutia to me--just tell me what your response is to my points, or admit you're disinterested. But if you're disinterested than don't cover the subject.
Okay we'll do this in two different threads I guess....lol
So you answered post #4 here where I answered all of your questions and where I said no Jews died in 70CE?
If you can point me to your response I would appreciate it....
-
Since you want me to answer this post in this thread here it is again:
No, I didn't. I was directing you to my response to you above in post #4 that you've clearly missed...
You can delete your post #5 here, and post #29 in Chronology.
I'm ensuring that you see I *have indeed* answered, even though you claim I've "missed" it. I haven't missed anything. But you are not even trying to answer my points, even though I've posted them in two different threads!
All this talk is minutia to me--just tell me what your response is to my points, or admit you're disinterested. But if you're disinterested than don't cover the subject.
Okay we'll do this in two different threads I guess....lol
So you answered post #4 here where I answered all of your questions and where I said no Jews died in 70CE?
If you can point me to your response I would appreciate it....
Yes, this is why we need to deal with each issue in its own thread. ;) I'll go back to post #4 and answer your specific questions now. Thanks.
-
Christians may well have been aware of the temple's newfound inefficacy, but that doesn't mean religious Jews would have taken the same view. They would have continued worshipping at the temple up until its destruction in 70 CE.
Okay, let's put aside what the people might have believed for a moment. I think we can both agree that the people had a hard time following YHWH's guidance and direction.
Let's say we want to answer a simple question: Did the destruction in 70 CE fulfill Jesus' words here, "So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ a spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—." Mth 24:15
We know the temple was the shadow, not the realities established in Christ. So the temple served as the Holy Place until Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role, at which point the temple no longer held its position as the shadow Holy Place because Jesus brought the realities.
We want the mind of scripture, right? We want the mind of Christ, the Word. So let's think like God's Word. Could Jesus have been calling the physical temple in Jerusalem the Holy Place in 70 CE if it no longer held that title, no longer fulfilled that role, and no longer was functioning in any way in God's Word?
How about the daily sacrifice?
"From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days." Dan 12:11
"They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days." rev 11:2,3
(Now I know others here believe Dan 12:11 was fulfilled in Maccabees; however, I argue Rev 11 is speaking of the same event. Keep in mind Rev was written in the first century, and Maccabees isn't even part of the cannon. And lastly, no one can prove there were exactly 1290 days between any events from 167-160 BCE. Trust me; I tried at one point. As well, Jesus repeats the prophecy.)
Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled programming...
It was still a physical structure up until then. It existed, and it was in use. Would they have viewed the Roman siege as a, or the, abomination of desecration? The destruction of the temple was no trivial event. (I'm aware you're not suggesting the temple wasn't physically present; I'm emphasising that it was and that it was is relevant.)
Let me show you something, brother.
Why does Jesus say in Mth to flee when they see the abomination standing in the Holy Place, but in Luke, He says to flee when they see Jerusalem surrounded? According to Josephus, these two events were three years apart. The temple was also the last thing destroyed, so wouldn't it have been too late to flee once Roman reached the temple?
I'll let you consider that one for a moment...
“So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ a spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." Mth 24:15,15
"When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains," Luk 21:20,21
So, to your question "then how can they apply to the shadows that Jesus did away with when establishing the realities in Himself?" I would consider whether it's appropriate to consider those things that Jesus "did away with" as specifically, shadows removed from relevance/prophetic relevance.
You may need to clarify.
See, that's the whole point. If Hebrews tells us the temple ceased functioning, we ask what its function was. Its function was everything it was. It was not still there because YHWH wanted it to be; there was no further use for it.
So if we have the mind of Christ, the mind of the Word, then would we not understand that as far as God's Word sees it, that temple no longer pertained to anything in prophecy? How can we apply scriptures talking about the Holy Place and the sacrifices to that physical temple if it no longer housed or functioned as those items?
Do you see what I mean? According to Hebrews, it was no longer the Holy Place, no longer the sacrifices. Christ did away with the first by establishing the second, the realities in Him. He fulfilled the Law; Christians were no longer under the Law.
Should we not conclude that the only thing in Jerusalem in 70 CE was an antichrist false religion?
I don't think I would, no.
Okay, brother, let's look at this rationally for a moment.
Were there any Jews in Jerusalem in 70 CE? Well, what was a Jew after Jesus?
"In the same way, “Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith.” The real children of Abraham, then, are those who put their faith in God." Gal 3:6,7
"For Abraham is the father of all who believe." Rem 4:16b
"A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly." Rom 2:28,29
"For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children." Rom 9:6,7
So, if Christians would have listened to Jesus, there would be no Jews in Jerusalem in 70 CE, right? A Jew at this point is by faith. An offspring of Abraham is through faith, not genealogies. This is why Paul admonished not to be caught up with foolish debates about genealogies because they were irrelevant at that point.
Again, we want the mind of Christ, the mind of God's Word. So if we think like God's Word, then there was no Holy Place in Jerusalem, there were no sacrifices to be ceased, there were no Jews in Jerusalem in 70 CE.
What was in Jerusalem in 70 CE?
"Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son." 1Jhn 2:22
Brother, is there anything more detrimental to uncovering truth than confirmation bias? This is our biggest hurdle. Over the years, I have constantly had to keep my confirmation bias in check every step of the way. I've come to leap for joy when I discover I was wrong about something and have learned to really relish in those moments. Why? Because it meant I was one step closer to the truth, and our Lord allowed me to understand and to be corrected. I don't mean this toward you or anyone else; I was just sharing how I approach scripture.
So at one time, I believed the Holy Place and the Sacrifices at the temple in 70 CE were ceased in fulfillment of prophecy until I realized that none of those things were in Jerusalem in 70 CE.
Again, I would ask for your assistance, and maybe you can change my mind. Is there any reason to believe that Jerusalem in 70 CE was anything other than an antichrist false religion where no Jews died?
All love...
Joshua
-
Greetings,
You stated:
Futurists today are irrationally trying to make this about the Reign of Antichrist, and ignore anything that involves less than endtime material. .
I can't tell you how many times and how many forums I have posted this on in the last couple of years. And yet there is no response to it of any merit, because it's the truth! These Christians just don't like to be told different from what they want to believe. But I'm sorry--it's God's truth that matters, and not what we *want* to believe!
I offered merit to a Futurist view, and then I stated I had many Preterist friends, and you didn't correct me. So are you a Preterist, or aren't you?
No, not a Preterist. A Preterist believes that most prophecy, including the Olivet Discourse and the Revelation, was fulfilled in the 1st century or thereabouts. I believe the "Great Tribulation" of the Jewish People began in 70 AD and continues throughout the present age. And I believe there will be a literal Antichrist with 10 kings and 7 states at the end of this present age.
Like most Christians I believe some prophecies were fulfilled in history, and some will be fulfilled in the future. The fall of Jerusalem, the AoD, was fulfilled in history, in 70 AD. The Return of Christ will be fulfilled in the future, on the last day of the age.
It depends on how you interpret Daniel and Revelation. The temple in Jerusalem did not "cease functioning" at Jesus' death, though it did render null and void the sacrifices that were offered there, or perhaps redundant.
Respectfully, and I do mean with all Christian love: You failed to grasp what I presented.
The temple did indeed "cease functioning" at Jesus' ascension, according to Hebrews. Now we don't have to guess what that means. If we know it stood physically till 70 CE, that means Hebrews could only be talking about the temple's stasis in God's Word.
Heb 8.13 13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
Mention that the temple covenant was obsolete did not mean it ceased to exist or be used. It says it will "soon disappear." That means the Jews continued to worship in vain at a place that had been rendered "obsolete," or redundant, by the sacrifice of Christ.
Heb 9.8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning.
Since the way into the Most Holy Place had already been disclosed by the resurrection of Jesus, it's clear that the "first tabernacle" was no longer "functioning," in the sense of providing a dispensation of grace to Israel for sin. But its worship was still in play since unbelieving Jews continued to worship there. And that's what Heb 8 referred to by suggesting it would "soon disappear." In other words, temple worship, though illegitimate by God's standards, continued to exist. And that was the temple Jesus said would be destroyed in the generation of his apostles.
I mean, does it not say that the temple no longer held any ideological position once Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role?
Yes, again, the temple was no longer functioning with a legitimate priesthood since the priesthood of Christ had been established in place of that failed covenant. But it continued to exist and had not yet passed away, as Heb 8.13 suggests.
The Law continued to be practiced by Jews that didn't believe in Jesus, but it was, as you indicate, a dead letter. Nothing indicates that Christian Gentiles were "spiritual Jews." To be Jewish is an ethnic designation, and cannot be spiritualized away.
Was there a single Jew in Jerusalem in 70 CE? What would you say if I said, no? No Jews died in 70 CE.
I would say there were a lot of dead Jews in Jerusalem after the Romans went in in 70 AD and destroyed the city and the sanctuary. The prophecy of the AoD was that an abominable, pagan desolator would approach the city and ultimately destroy both the city and the sanctuary. That happened from 70-135 AD.
Could prophecy pertaining to God's people have been fulfilled in 70 CE if no Jews died? Were any Jews killed or "punished" in 70 CE?
Sounds like you're trying to re-invent history?
You need to look at these two prophecies separately, because they are different prophecies. One has to do with the reign of Antiochus 4, whose period of tormenting the Jews was 1290 days.
You assumed I was connecting them as the same event; I never said that. I was just picking two prophecies that first came to mind, which I believe are still future, pertaining to the abomination being set up in the Holy Place and the courtyard being trampled.
A lot of people join the two prophecies together. I don't. History has Antiochus 4 as operating his "reign of terror" against the Jews for 1290 days. You may or may not agree, but I think that the book of Revelation has the 3.5 years of Antichrist being only 1260 days. The 1290 day period is different from this. I'm just explaining my own view. I do *not* see the 1290 days as future.
The prophecy in Rev 11 refers to the temple as a symbol of the heavenly temple, which is what it always was. That symbol was used for worship in the OT under the Law, but in the book of Revelation it is used not for worship, but strictly as a symbol of the heavenly temple, which is God's dwelling among His people.
Well, actually there were two rooms in the sanctuary. Only the Most Holy Place represented Heaven and God's throne. The Holy place was where the priests/elect worked on earth, and the courtyard was where all could come to be clothed in linen.
I could go into great detail on what each item in the sanctuary was a shadow of, but I'm sure you're well familiar with these things. :)
Yes, have studied them for many years. Have books on the subject of the tabernacle furniture. The *entire temple* was patterned after the heavenly temple. I don't believe you can therefore separate one piece of furniture from another in this regard.
You know, if Hebrews says the temple no longer plays any part in God's Word after Jesus, I would think that would be a problem for the Preterist. At least none of my Preterist friends could respond to Hebrews once they understood what it was actually saying.
And if you're not a Preterist, be kind and polite to me, and simply let me know...lol Just take this information I have presented as someone sharing what they have been given through the Holy Spirit. :)
All love... ;)
Joshua
Thanks for your generous attitude. We can be kind to each other--I have no wish to generate any kind of hostility. I enjoy the back and forth--sometimes I have to give, and at other times I expect others must give. But that's between God and individuals. I just want to share from whatever experience I have. I'm trying to help with stuff that has helped me.
No, I'm not a Preterist, as I said. And I do agree the NT supplants the OT. There is no longer any physical temple. But Jesus said, in his Olivet Discourse, that the physical temple would soon perish precisely because the Jews did not recognize the old covenant had died on the cross. None of that means Jesus isn't the final temple. I don't believe there will ever again be a physical temple built of stone and wood.
Thanks for the conversation...and the patience.
-
Heb 8.13 13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
Mention that the temple covenant was obsolete did not mean it ceased to exist or be used. It says it will "soon disappear." That means the Jews continued to worship in vain at a place that had been rendered "obsolete," or redundant, by the sacrifice of Christ.
Greetings, friend, and thank you for your kind Christian words as well. The written word is difficult sometimes to portray understanding, so patience is indeed needed.
Tell me: Why do you separate Hebrews 8:13 into hundreds of years? You're saying Jehovah told Jeremiah there was a new covenant coming, and then you say Christ made it obsolete, and then it disappeared in 70 CE. That's six hundred years, right?
I prefer to allow the context to remain with the writer. So if the writer in Hebrews 8:13 is talking about when God spoke to Jeremiah, I believe the very next sentence must remain in that same timeframe as well, unless the writer clearly indicates for themselves they are changing the time frame spoken of. That takes us out of the interpretation business.
Using your method, I could spread Hebrews 8:13 over 2500 years if I wanted. Only the writer of Hebrews can give us the context, right? So, please share how you separate his statement in Heb 8:13 over 600 years. Please, no interpretation of events, because someone could do the same thing and say the temple will vanish still future. Can you show your understanding by using only Heb 8:13?
When allowing the context to remain with the writer, he is saying God told Jeremiah a new covenant was coming, and by telling him that He made the old obsolete, and from that point on, it was ready to vanish. All in the same moment with Jeremiah.
Heb 9.8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning.
Since the way into the Most Holy Place had already been disclosed by the resurrection of Jesus, it's clear that the "first tabernacle" was no longer "functioning," in the sense of providing a dispensation of grace to Israel for sin.
Can you share with me how you connect in scripture the tabernacle no longer functioning specifically to the sacrifices, yet its other functions still remain? I mean, using that method you use, I could say its ceasing function could just be the Most Holy Place. Or I could say the temple was no longer functioning, but the courtyard was because Jesus is the real temple. Do you see what I mean? If you use that type of interpretation, you must take it to its extreme and discover whether or not you are interpreting or allowing the text to speak for itself.
I prefer to allow the text to speak for itself that it no longer functioned, and that would mean everything it functioned as; and since all the realities were in Christ, we understand everything the temple was, was replaced in Christ. And, to be honest, all scripture agrees that there was nothing left on mount Moriah after Jesus. (Of course, the physical temple was still there, but we want the mind of Christ, the Word.)
I prefer to take myself out of the interpretation business and only obtain my understanding from direct scriptural connection. We are told the temple served as a shadow, and Jesus fulfilled the sacrifices, the Law, the High Priest, the gates, all of it. He also told us our bodies were the temple now, our sacrifices of praise are the daily sacrifice, and a Jew was one of faith.
So, if I were to say that the temple in 70 CE still housed the Holy Place, the Most Holy, the sacrifices, the High Priest, and so on, would I not be contradicting Jesus? I'm going to say yes.
Trust me; I mean only Christian love because I once believed as you. I believed less than a year ago that some prophecies were fulfilled in 70 CE until I realized Hebrews words in 8:13 can only apply to the moment God spoke to Jeremiah, and the temple ceased ALL functions when Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role.
But its worship was still in play since unbelieving Jews continued to worship there. And that's what Heb 8 referred to by suggesting it would "soon disappear." In other words, temple worship, though illegitimate by God's standards, continued to exist. And that was the temple Jesus said would be destroyed in the generation of his apostles.
Again, I would ask: Can you please share with me how you came to scripturally separate Hebrews 8:13 over six hundred years rather than all in the same moment to Jeremiah?
I would say there were a lot of dead Jews in Jerusalem after the Romans went in in 70 AD and destroyed the city and the sanctuary.
Sounds like you're trying to re-invent history?
Am I trying to rewrite history, or is what I am saying always been history. Yes, I believe no Jews died in Jerusalem. Why?
"In the same way, “Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith.” The real children of Abraham, then, are those who put their faith in God." Gal 3:6,7
"For Abraham is the father of all who believe." Rem 4:16b
"A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly." Rom 2:28,29
"For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children." Rom 9:6,7
-------
A Jew is one through faith in Christ. If all Christians listened to Jesus and got out of the city, no Jews died in 70 CE. Now, according to Josephus, some one million people died in the city, but were they Jews according to scripture?
Remember, we want the mind of Christ, the mind of the Word. We should think like the Word. If I say someone is a Jew and they don't believe in Christ, am I contradicting scripture? Yes! Paul didn't leave allowances for genealogies; he fervently shot down those who tried to play the geneology card. Paul told us plainly that a Jew was not one of genealogy but faith through Christ.
So, what was in Jerusalem in 70 CE? The only thing that was there was an antichrist false religion and people of the world who followed the satan. That's what Jesus told them, there father was the satan. Should I contradict our Lord? Not me anyway...
Prove it wrong dear friend...
A lot of people join the two prophecies together. I don't. History has Antiochus 4 as operating his "reign of terror" against the Jews for 1290 days. You may not do so, but the book of Revelation has the 3.5 years of Antichrist being only 1260 days. The 1290 day period is different from this. I'm just explaining my own view. I do *not* see the 1290 days as future.
Jesus repeated this prophecy and said it was still future, did He not? As well, no one can prove there were exactly 1290 days between any events from 167-160 BCE. If you can, please let me know...
"From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days." Dan 12:11
"So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ a spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand." Mth 24:15
Thanks for the conversation...and the patience.
There is no better subject in the world, brother. We here are going about the work our Lord left us to do! I hope we stand shoulder to shoulder at our Lord's arrival...
All love...
Joshua
-
Tell me: Why do you separate Hebrews 8:13 into hundreds of years? You're saying Jehovah told Jeremiah there was a new covenant coming, and then you say Christ made it obsolete, and then it disappeared in 70 CE. That's six hundred years, right?
The Prophet Jeremiah predicted a time when *Israel* would enter into a New Covenant with God. It would be unlike the Law of Moses, but would survive the failure of the Old Covenant.
We know the New Covenant of Christ began on the Cross, but Israel, as a nation, never entered into covenant with Christ. Their covenant with God through the Law expired, or was nullified, and the nation, as a whole, never entered into a new covenant with God.
But Jeremiah predicted that at the end of the ages the nation Israel would once again enter into a national covenant with God. I believe this will be at the Return of Christ.
Jeremiah's prediction of a New Covenant does not detail when it would begin. It only details that it would involve the restoration of the nation to God through a new agreement, unlike the covenant of Law. So that was not when the New Covenant began with the Gospel of Christ, but only when it will bring in the nation of Israel as a Christian nation. That hasn't happened yet, obviously.
Can you share with me how you connect in scripture the tabernacle no longer functioning specifically to the sacrifices, yet its other functions still remain?
What I said was that even though the temple worship continued, the temple itself was outdated, and was soon to stop functioning altogether. Nothing about this separates sacrifices from the temple itself--it all was outdated, continued to be used, and was soon to be destroyed.
I quoted it for you. This verse suggests that despite the outdating of the temple worship, it had not yet "ceased."
Heb 8.13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
I prefer to take myself out of the interpretation business and only obtain my understanding from direct scriptural connection. We are told the temple served as a shadow, and Jesus fulfilled the sacrifices, the Law, the High Priest, the gates, all of it. He also told us our bodies were the temple now, our sacrifices of praise are the daily sacrifice, and a Jew was one of faith.
None of this is contradictory to my position. I agree that Jesus is the true temple. But this did not stop unbelieving Jews from continuing to worship in the temple until it was actually destroyed in 70 AD. That is just what Heb 8-9 implies.
Since Jesus was a better form of "temple worship," the old temple worship was invalidated. At any rate, the Jews had failed under the old temple system. And so God had brought into being a new one--one that the unbelieving Jews refused to recognize.
And so, the OT temple was later destroyed, after God allowed it to continue for 40 years, wanting to give the Jews more opportunity to hear the Gospel.
Am I trying to rewrite history, or is what I am saying always been history. Yes, I believe no Jews died in Jerusalem. Why?
Replacement Theology doesn't ignore the reality of the Jewish People. It may define a "spiritualized Jew" as a Christian, but it wouldn't deny physical Jews, I should think? And yet, you seem to be doing that by denying there were any physical Jews in Jerusalem in 70 AD??
For what it's worth I don't agree with Replacement Theology. I do not see Christians as "spiritualized Jews." But again, even if you do, you cannot dismiss the reality of physical Jews in Jerusalem in 70 AD.
We have the problem often with understanding how flexible language is. Paul takes legitimate shortcuts all the time. For example, he says "there is neither Jew nor Gentile." If you stop right there he would be saying Jews and Gentiles don't exist.
But Paul isn't speaking in a vacuum. There is a context. There is no Jew or other *with respect to the OT divisions between them.*
In the same way, even though God temporarily cut off the nation as a covenant nation, Jews continued to exist. God said in Hosea that he would reinstate them as a covenant nation. They would be, once again, "My People." In the same way, Paul said, "God is able to reinstate them."
There is no better subject in the world, brother. We here are going about the work our Lord left us to do! I hope we stand shoulder to shoulder at our Lord's arrival...
So do I. Thank you.
-
What I said was the though the temple worship continued, the temple itself was outdated, and was soon to stop functioning altogether. Nothing about this separates sacrifices from the temple itself--it all was outdated, continued to be used, and was soon to be destroyed.
I quoted it for you. This verse suggests that despite the outdating of the temple worship, it had not yet "ceased."
Heb 8.13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
You haven't grasped what I have presented yet. What makes you think Hebrews 8:13 doesn't all apply to the moment Jeremiah knew a new covenant was coming? You apply your own interpretation by spreading out that scripture over 600 years. I'm telling you Hebrews 8:13 only spans less than 3 seconds of time. Only long enough to say, "A new covenant is coming." The rest of that scripture is just the results of that one comment.
Read the scripture again; it says the old covenant was obsolete the moment Jeremiah was told there was a new coming. Just telling Jeremiah the new was coming made the old obsolete. And from that moment it was obsolete, it was soon to disappear. The entire scripture is only talking about the moment Jeremiah was told the new covenant was coming.
The old covenant vanished the moment Jesus brought the new. The new covenant discussed in Heb 8:13 vanished the old when Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role, the same moment the temple ceased.
Then the temple ceased functioning that same moment Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role.
You'll have to understand what I'm presenting brother, because this is what the text is saying, I promise...lol
And yet, you seem to be doing that by denying there were any physical Jews in Jerusalem in 70 AD??
I'm saying Paul says there were no Jews in Jerusalem in 70 CE. You keep giving me your understanding of a Jew as a physical one separate from a spiritual one, but that's not what scripture says. Paul says Christians are Jews, which means if you don't believe in Christ, you're not a Jew. By you saying I'm wrong, you're saying Paul is wrong. By you saying there were Jews in Jerusalem, you're contradicting Paul. According to Paul, any non-believer is not a Jew. Period...
The physical Jew was only a shadow. We are the real Jews; Christians by faith through the promise made to Abram.
That's what Paul says.
All love...
Joshua
-
We want the mind of scripture, right? We want the mind of Christ, the Word...
So if we have the mind of Christ, the mind of the Word, then would we not understand that as far as God's Word sees it...
Are you suggesting that other views stem from some other mind than the mind of scripture, Christ, or the Word?
Do you see what I mean? According to Hebrews, it was no longer the Holy Place, no longer the sacrifices. Christ did away with the first by establishing the second, the realities in Him. He fulfilled the Law; Christians were no longer under the Law.
I understand what you're saying but I don't find the reasoning compelling. For instance, you ask: " [How c]ould Jesus have been calling the physical temple in Jerusalem the Holy Place in 70 CE if it no longer held that title, no longer fulfilled that role, and no longer was functioning in any way in God's Word?"
In response, I have to consider that Jesus was speaking to people who did view the physical temple as holy. This causes me to wonder if the line of argument is anachronistic, taking what we read in Hebrews 8 and applying it to Jesus' earlier utterances in Matthew 24 -- with perhaps little consideration to the recipients of Jesus' message?
That is, the question of how God viewed the temple is distinct from the question of how religious Jews in the first century viewed the temple; and, it seems to me that Jesus would have accommodated the understanding of those religious Jews when speaking to them, otherwise, what will they do except become hung up on what they'd see as a lunatic's ranting about the inefficacy of the temple?
And, was it the case that the temple had been obsoleted for those faithful Jews who continued to attend, perhaps having not heard about Jesus? I'm not sure that we can cut clear lines through this stuff.
Okay, brother, let's look at this rationally for a moment.
Were we looking at it irrationally before?
Brother, is there anything more detrimental to uncovering truth than confirmation bias? This is our biggest hurdle. Over the years, I have constantly had to keep my confirmation bias in check every step of the way. I've come to leap for joy when I discover I was wrong about something and have learned to really relish in those moments. Why? Because it meant I was one step closer to the truth, and our Lord allowed me to understand and to be corrected. I don't mean this toward you or anyone else; I was just sharing how I approach scripture.
Always condemned to be the brother, sigh. Anyway. I am, by the way, just not pleased about it.
The thing about testimony struck from the record and a jury instructed to ignore it, is that the jury can't really ignore it. How does that old poem go -- the eye it cannot choose but see // the ear it cannot bid be still? The problem with a thought like the one above is its implication. You've had a problem with confirmation bias. It's been your biggest hurdle -- wait, our biggest hurdle? You've had to keep it in check.
I'll give you an 8 out of 10 cats... err effort, for trying though. The foundational issue is that I haven't provided hard opinion, especially after previously stating a disinterest in eschatology, followed by a clear hypothetical response to the idea of another poster regarding what they think the abomination of desolation might be.
So let's be careful with the patronising presumptions.
So at one time, I believed the Holy Place and the Sacrifices at the temple in 70 CE were ceased in fulfillment of prophecy until I realized that none of those things were in Jerusalem in 70 CE.
Again, I would ask for your assistance, and maybe you can change my mind. Is there any reason to believe that Jerusalem in 70 CE was anything other than an antichrist false religion where no Jews died?
All love...
Joshua
That's interesting because I replied to this:
"Should we not conclude that the only thing in Jerusalem in 70 CE was an antichrist false religion?"
But now you're asking me to provide a reply to this:
"Is there any reason to believe that Jerusalem in 70 CE was anything other than an antichrist false religion where no Jews died?"
The immediate answer is: given the large number of people who died in the siege of Jerusalem, I'd say it's irresponsible to make the claim that there were no faithful Jews left in the city (who weren't at that time Christian) and that all that was left as 'an antichrist false religion'. I'm not one to make soteriological claims about another person so I'd be very hesitant to agree with your position.
That's not confirmation bias, by the way. I speak out of an awareness that life isn't comprised of the neatly chunked decades the history books would have us believe. Religious belief is incredibly difficult, and to declare all Jews who weren't Christian as antiChrist seems to overstep considerably.
You predicate your view on the following:
"In the same way, “Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith.” The real children of Abraham, then, are those who put their faith in God." Gal 3:6,7
"For Abraham is the father of all who believe." Rem 4:16b
"A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly." Rom 2:28,29
"For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children." Rom 9:6,7
And that's cool and all, but do you know enough about the people in Jerusalem in 70 CE to state definitively that "The only thing that was there was an antichrist false religion and people of the world who followed the satan."?
That's what Jesus told them, there father was the satan. Should I contradict our Lord? Not me anyway...
You would be contradicting Jesus if you commented on John 8 and disagreed with Jesus' words in v44. You are not, however, contradicting Jesus in declaring Jews in Jerusalem in 70 CE as actual followers of Satan instead. You're certainly extending His words, but that extension isn't infallible.
Prove it wrong dear friend...
That's not how this works. The claim is irresponsible given its breadth, so why should we consider it responsible given the realities of faith in the lives of every day people?
-
Were we looking at it irrationally before?
If that's what I meant, I would have said that. "Let's think rationally for a moment" is a fill statement, a set-up proposition. Had I wished, I could have said, "You are not thinking rationally;" however, that had never crossed my mind until you suggested it.
Are you suggesting that other views stem from some other mind than the mind of scripture, Christ, or the Word?
Again, had I meant that that's what I would have said. I prefer to say what I mean and mean what I say.
A common communication error is to take what someone else says and interpret it however you wish. The only person that has the right to the meaning of what is said is the one who speaks. There is no such thing as personal truth. No one has the right to interpret what you say however they wish.
Case in point: If you were to say I was wrong about something, do I have the right to think you're calling me an idiot? That's not what you said, right? It would be unfair for me to twist your words.
My statements about having the mind of Christ and thinking rationally, I stand by as set up propositions, a way to open an idea. Had I wished to say you weren't rational, I wouldn't beat around the bush about it; I would have said that. There's no reason to look past my exact words.
With all due Christian respect...
Always condemned to be the brother, sigh.
If you are a sister, I apologize for assuming you were a brother. Please accept my apology in this matter.
So let's be careful with the patronising presumptions.
This is disconcerting... If you've read into any of my statements a "patronizing" or "presumptuous" attitude, I'm afraid you have misread me, in my humble opinion, of course.
In response, I would have to say that you have dully misrepresented me through your mischaracterization and twisting of words. Removing the originally intended context to create a new narrative is a character flaw, IMO. If one says, "let's think rationally here," that's what they mean; they don't mean you're not thinking rationally; otherwise, that's what they would have said.
With all due Christian love...
Joshua
-
As opposed to "with all undue Christian love"
:o
Carry on!
;D
-
If that's what I meant, I would have said that. "Let's think rationally for a moment" is a fill statement, a set-up proposition. Had I wished, I could have said, "You are not thinking rationally;" however, that had never crossed my mind until you suggested it.
:) Within the last six months or so I've become uniquely gifted at drawing out implications no speaker could ever possibly have meant. But also, you seem to have a style of conversational filler that makes it easy to be cheeky.
A common communication error is to take what someone else says and interpret it however you wish. The only person that has the right to the meaning of what is said is the one who speaks. There is no such thing as personal truth. No one has the right to interpret what you say however they wish.
Do people interpret arbitrarily, though? Communication is a dance: the speaker speaks, the listener receives, and then a dialogue follows in which both may discuss what was said and how it was understood. Certainly, it's true that it's not the listener's place to tell the speaker what they meant, but it's fairly difficult for a person to refrain from 'interpreting... however they wish' given the difficult task that communication is. The listener receives as he or she receives, and it's a mistake for any listener to think that their understanding is infallible.
Certainly, we should all guard against misinterpretation, misconstrual, and so on.
I do think there are personal truths, though. Or, maybe we could distinguish between objective truth as fact, and subjective truth as the inward working out of one's faith. Or I don't think there's any conflict between these two. Maybe I'll need to brush up on my Kierkegaard.
Anyway, a speaker can certainly make clear their intention in speaking, but that doesn't disqualify those who receive the message from interpreting it, analysing it, and so on. The speaker may intend to say one thing, but find that they've said far too much; or, they might find that what they've said applies in a way they didn't intend. Communication is interesting.
Case in point: If you were to say I was wrong about something, do I have the right to think you're calling me an idiot? That's not what you said, right? It would be unfair for me to twist your words.
My statements about having the mind of Christ and thinking rationally, I stand by as set up propositions, a way to open an idea. Had I wished to say you weren't rational, I wouldn't beat around the bush about it; I would have said that. There's no reason to look past my exact words.
With all due Christian respect...
I think what we've learned is that we should be mindful of the implications of the things we write. I would never call you an idiot, by the way. I might instead suggest that you had some issue with bias, or exhort you to have the mind of Christ, or of the Word, or of the Scriptures. To think rationally for a moment.
See how it comes across? These are the sorts of things that are said as filler, or they're the sorts of things that are said at someone because it's thought that they maybe aren't quite there. They're not the sorts of things said to a person who is thought to be thinking rationally, without bias, who has the mind of Christ, etc. Not in the conversations I've been exposed to, anyway. Maybe it's a unique geographic feature of where you're from. It's hard to say: given the nature of the internet, too many unstated cultural assumptions go into communication that is often assumed to share common foundations and understandings.
If you are a sister, I apologize for assuming you were a brother. Please accept my apology in this matter.
You could refer to me as 'sister' but then the entire Conservative element of the church would think you were pretty damned liberal. I'm a dude, reluctantly.
This is disconcerting... If you've read into any of my statements a "patronizing" or "presumptuous" attitude, I'm afraid you have misread me, in my humble opinion, of course.
Yes, this is the nature of communication. It's possible to convey something intended and to incorrectly interpret what wasn't meant.
In response, I would have to say that you have dully misrepresented me through your mischaracterization and twisting of words. Removing the originally intended context to create a new narrative is a character flaw, IMO. If one says, "let's think rationally here," that's what they mean; they don't mean you're not thinking rationally; otherwise, that's what they would have said.
With all due Christian love...
Joshua
Oh no, my character is flawed. :( Well, I knew that, but it's not flawed in the way that you suggest. I'll need to keep tin mind that you're a bit touchy.
By the way, if one says "let's think rationally here" in the middle of a conversation, the implication is that the conversation has taken an irrational or non-rational trajectory. It's an exhortation to get back to thinking rationally. If it's said at the beginning of a conversation, then the implication is that one's interlocutor has a habit of thinking irrationally or non-rationally. It's probably best to just refrain from saying such things.
It's the same with your other statements, like "We want the mind of scripture, right? We want the mind of Christ, the Word..." Well, yes, but now you're risking the suggestion that any view that disagrees with the one presented isn't of the mind of Scripture, of Christ, of the Word, etc.
This isn't a mischaracterisation, either. This is a question about the meaning of the things said. Forums as cross-cultural communication. Wunderbar.
-
but it's fairly difficult for a person to refrain from 'interpreting... however they wish' given the difficult task that communication is. The listener receives as he or she receives, and it's a mistake for any listener to think that their understanding is infallible.
Why not think positively? If you think there may be some ill intent from the speaker, why not ask and allow them to define what they mean? You may be implying an ill will to someone else's statements when there was never that intent.
I might instead suggest that you had some issue with bias, or exhort you to have the mind of Christ, or of the Word, or of the Scriptures. To think rationally for a moment. See how it comes across?
No... If someone says, "Let's think rationally for a moment," I think, "Okay, let me think rationally about this." I don't think the other person is telling me I'm not being rational, they didn't say that. Only someone thinking negatively would take offense. In the new kingdom, that type of thinking will be gone. It's human imperfection.
That's exactly what the satan did in the Garden. He changed YHWH's words around to mean something other than what God meant. Are you saying it was okay for the satan and Eve to interpret YHWH's words however they wished because it was their truth? (And I guess I have to say: "I'm not saying you are, I'm asking if you would say that based on your current understanding.)
Again, only the one who says something has the right to interpretation. I believe this is 100% of the time, with one exception, unless the speaker intended their words to be ambiguous through such things as art.
But hey, this is my opinion, as I've said... I don't tell anybody what to think; you have to make up your own mind.
These are the sorts of things that are said as filler, or they're the sorts of things that are said at someone because it's thought that they maybe aren't quite there. They're not the sorts of things said to a person who is thought to be thinking rationally, without bias, who has the mind of Christ, etc.
You say that as though it's a fact...lol I believe you are voicing an opinion. Again, IMO....
Because I don't take offense, I prefer to think positively. Perhaps you are the one that is sensitive... ;)
You could refer to me as 'sister' but then the entire Conservative element of the church would think you were pretty damned liberal. I'm a dude, reluctantly.
So that I understand and don't mischaracterize what you're saying: Are you saying you identify as female? Do you identify as gay? Do you support same-sex marriage?
I'm forward yes; however, I don't intend any presumptuous or "cheeky" play of words. As I said, I say what I mean and exactly what I think. I don't need to be cheeky or beat around the bush.
With that said, I'm asking about your sexuality because of your response. My questions aren't hiding any preconceived ideas about you. If I have further comments on this matter, I'll reserve those till I allow your response. That's how I prefer communication...
Oh no, my character is flawed. :( Well, I knew that, but it's not flawed in the way that you suggest. I'll need to keep tin mind that you're a bit touchy.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. It appears to me you were the first to take offense/a bit touchy.
By the way, if one says "let's think rationally here" in the middle of a conversation, the implication is that the conversation has taken an irrational or non-rational trajectory. It's an exhortation to get back to thinking rationally. If it's said at the beginning of a conversation, then the implication is that one's interlocutor has a habit of thinking irrationally or non-rationally. It's probably best to just refrain from saying such things.
It's the same with your other statements, like "We want the mind of scripture, right? We want the mind of Christ, the Word..." Well, yes, but now you're risking the suggestion that any view that disagrees with the one presented isn't of the mind of Scripture, of Christ, of the Word, etc.
This isn't a mischaracterisation, either. This is a question about the meaning of the things said. Forums as cross-cultural communication. Wunderbar.
Again, I completely disagree. Just because you wouldn't say those things because you feel they would be inflammatory doesn't make that a fact.
So, If I disagree with you and believe those statements can be used positively (as I used them), what gives someone else the right to tell me what I can and can't say? Again, only the intent of the speaker is important, not what you would say or how you would say it.
Did the satan and Eve have the right to interpret God's words?
Anyway, I can't change my positivity because others infer negativity.
Joshua
-
Isn't "thinking" by definition supposed to be rational?
Isn't the phrase "thinking rationally" sort of like saying "corrupt Congressman"?
-
We always have the right to interpret others actions/words/communication. After all, communication is a two way street, and until A communicates to B and B returns a communication that demonstrates agreement/understanding, no actual communication has occurred. There has perhaps been an exchange of information, but not necessarily communication.
So yes, we all (like Adam and Eve) have the right to interpret, but the communication loop is not closed until our interpretation is re-transmitted to the original speaker/writer in such a way as to confirm understanding, even if not agreement.
-
So yes, we all (like Adam and Eve) have the right to interpret.
Let me get this straight: You're saying the satan and Eve had the right to interpret YHWH's words?
-
So yes, we all (like Adam and Eve) have the right to interpret.
Let me get this straight: You're saying the satan and Eve had the right to interpret YHWH's words?
Absolutely. Doesn't mean that their interpretation is correct (it clearly was not), or that they won't suffer the consequences for interpreting incorrectly or from acting on an incorrect interpretation, but certainly, yes, everyone interprets everything. That's how communication works.
-
Let me get this straight: You're saying the satan and Eve had the right to interpret YHWH's words?
In your example, it's not that Satan and Eve (?) had the 'right' (I wouldn't use this word, personally) to interpret God's words, but that interpretation is a necessary component of communication and is inevitable. Interpretation involves the listener receiving what they've been told and determining a meaning based on what they've understood. This doesn't guarantee that their understanding is correct, which only the speaker can confirm. All it guarantees is that information has been passed from person A to person B. You're interpreting this as you read it.
I think what you're talking about would be better classified as reinterpretation. But even in this case, I'm not sure that it's the right word to use when talking about Satan or Eve.
-
So yes, we all (like Adam and Eve) have the right to interpret.
Let me get this straight: You're saying the satan and Eve had the right to interpret YHWH's words?
Absolutely. Doesn't mean that their interpretation is correct (it clearly was not), or that they won't suffer the consequences for interpreting incorrectly or from acting on an incorrect interpretation, but certainly, yes, everyone interprets everything. That's how communication works.
Aren't you talking about free will? You're saying the satan and Eve had the right to interpret God was lying, and that they wouldn't die as God said. If they had that right, then they would not have died. According to God they did not have that right, hence the warning they would die.
They certainly had the right to not believe God and die, but the right to twist His words? Seriously?
God's words will remain, and all those who twist them will be done away with. God will have no mercy on those who interpret His words any other way than how He means.
You realize we are talking about interpretation of the Bible, right? There is only one meaning to every single sentence in there, there is no personal interpretation.
That is reality, in my humble opinion...
Joshua
-
Interpretation involves the listener receiving what they've been told and determining a meaning based on what they've understood. This doesn't guarantee that their understanding is correct, which only the speaker can confirm.
I disagree (partially)... I believe it's the responsibility of the listener to understand exactly what the speaker means without allowing their own interpretive confirmation bias to stand in the way. It's the job of the listener to work out exactly what the speaker means, not what the speakers words mean to them.
The Bible is a book of communication. Each and every sentence in it has only one meaning. Sure, people can believe that they can read it and have their own personal interpretation based on their own beliefs and cognitive biases; however, that does not make their understanding correct, that does not lend oneself to allowing scripture to speak for iteself.
Again, it is my humble opinion that only the speaker has the right to define what is being said, and it is the job of the listener to understand what the speaker means. Interpretation was brought into the world by the satan and is called the lie. Interpretation is sin...
Sure, the satan and Eve had free will to choose to interpret God's words other than what He meant and look what it caused. Only God had the right to the definition of His words, just like each and every one of you. Interpretation is the reason for every death and war throughout mankind's history.
Again, in my humble opinion...
Joshua
-
Why not think positively? If you think there may be some ill intent from the speaker, why not ask and allow them to define what they mean? You may be implying an ill will to someone else's statements when there was never that intent.
See, communication is difficult. I haven't assumed any intent. But yes, I did ask for clarification:
- "Are you suggesting that other views stem from some other mind than the mind of scripture, Christ, or the Word?"
- "Were we looking at it irrationally before?"
These are questions, not statements. They aren't rhetorical, either. While both assume a 'no', it's that view towards a 'no' that raises the further question, 'then why write these things?'
You immediately went on the defensive, which doesn't seem like assuming positive intent. Also, as I noted, the comments were a cheeky way of pointing out that maybe these things weren't the best things to say in an already progressing conversation.
No... If someone says, "Let's think rationally for a moment," I think, "Okay, let me think rationally about this." I don't think the other person is telling me I'm not being rational, they didn't say that. Only someone thinking negatively would take offense. In the new kingdom, that type of thinking will be gone. It's human imperfection.
You might think that, but not everyone will. If you say 'let's think rationally for a moment' to someone who already thinks they've been thinking rationally, they'll react by wondering what it is they said that the other person thinks wasn't rational. It elicits a, 'wait, how do you think I've been thinking about this?' response. They're not going to double down -- 'okay, I've been thinking rationally but I'll think doubly rationally for this one.'
This has nothing to do with thinking negatively, but I agree that we'll be much better communicators in the new creation. You'll hopefully understand that I'm highlighting the difficulty with communication from both ends: your delivery, my understanding. In fact, that you seem confident that my understanding results from a negative outlook is interesting, and betrays something of the shortcomings in your own perspective.
That's exactly what the satan did in the Garden. He changed YHWH's words around to mean something other than what God meant. Are you saying it was okay for the satan and Eve to interpret YHWH's words however they wished because it was their truth? (And I guess I have to say: "I'm not saying you are, I'm asking if you would say that based on your current understanding.)
You didn't have to say that in this case, no. It's appreciated though. Despite the leading question.
I'm not sure I follow the phrasing of your question -- what do you mean by 'okay'? If you mean, was it permissible? Then no, it was not permissible for Satan or Eve to reinterpret God's instruction. It was, however, impossible for Eve to have understood God's instruction without interpreting it (towards an understanding). An interpretation was inevitable because that forms the basis of understanding, but reinterpretation is another question entirely.
As for the 'their truth' bit, I think you have a different idea of 'personal truth' in mind than I have. Personal truths don't violate or contravene objective truth, or God's truth, etc.
Again, only the one who says something has the right to interpretation. I believe this is 100% of the time, with one exception, unless the speaker intended their words to be ambiguous through such things as art.
I would say that they have the right to determine the meaning of what they said.
But hey, this is my opinion, as I've said... I don't tell anybody what to think; you have to make up your own mind.
You say that as though it's a fact...lol I believe you are voicing an opinion. Again, IMO....
I'm saying them as if I have a position in mind. You're free to disagree and provide a counter perspective, although given what you mentioned above regarding the 'think rationally' comment, I'm not sure that you're considering the viewpoint of others as empathetically as you might ideally be.
Because I don't take offense, I prefer to think positively. Perhaps you are the one that is sensitive... ;)
I'm not sure of that at all:
"Case in point: If you were to say I was wrong about something, do I have the right to think you're calling me an idiot? That's not what you said, right? It would be unfair for me to twist your words."
That's pretty on point for someone who wasn't offended, or at least, taken aback. Neither is the comment above, which attempts to turn around what I said. I mean, there's also the fact that we're still going on about this when you could have replied back with cheek and we would have probably left it at that.
Me being sensitive, though. That's a good one. Got a laugh.
So that I understand and don't mischaracterize what you're saying: Are you saying you identify as female? Do you identify as gay? Do you support same-sex marriage?
Curious. No, no, and no but I'm not against it either insofar as the state marrying people is concerned. How do you see these questions connecting?
I am dysphoric, but let's give my metaphysic some credit.
Again, I completely disagree. Just because you wouldn't say those things because you feel they would be inflammatory doesn't make that a fact.
The same is true in reverse, but isn't that the broader point I'm making regarding the difficulties and challenges of communication?
So, If I disagree with you and believe those statements can be used positively (as I used them), what gives someone else the right to tell me what I can and can't say? Again, only the intent of the speaker is important, not what you would say or how you would say it.
The speaker's intent contends with the listener's understanding. If you believe you've spoken one way, but others have understood you a different way, then it's worth thinking about why that's happened. It's not always the result of a character flaw, and just as the listener isn't infallible, neither is the speaker about how they say what they say.
-
Interpretation is sin... Interpretation is the reason for every death and war throughout mankind's history.
Is that your interpretation, is it?
-
I have to give it to you, very well said, well presented, and thought-provoking.
It's rare someone, in my experience, takes the time to actually understand (or the ability to) and then present a viable counter position. And this is vital in my ability to move forward in perfection, and recognize sinful conditions within myself, and assist others.
Well done indeed...
You immediately went on the defensive, which doesn't seem like assuming positive intent.
Perhaps you're right; whether I was correct about you assuming or not, I should have replied with another question allowing you to define your inference pertaining to my irrational statement.
Yes, you are correct.
In fact, that you seem confident that my understanding results from a negative outlook is interesting, and betrays something of the shortcomings in your own perspective.
Perhaps you're right, and this is an imperfection on my part.
I will say that my entire life, from childhood on, has been surrounded by people who twist your words into negativity, and it is a soar point. Perhaps this is the reason I allow no leeway within myself as to interpretation. But in our imperfect state, it's inevitable. Trama is no excuse for sin, but it helps to recognize it as part of its origin.
So yes, no matter how much I despise "re-interpretation," it's still ever-present in me. I don't mean I'm perfect in any way; I'm just saying I wish I could be perfect and strive in that direction, as scripture reminds us.
although given what you mentioned above regarding the 'think rationally' comment, I'm not sure that you're considering the viewpoint of others as empathetically as you might ideally be.
Perhaps... But I can't foresee someone taking offense to something being said; otherwise I would be constantly questioning myself.
It's like the game Pool or playing an instrument. In order to be good at it, you have to have complete confidence that you are the best at it. You can't doubt or worry about what others think. I don't mean to not consider others' feelings and be rude; I mean I'm just the kind of person that's going to speak up in public or private—someone who speaks their mind and doesn't care if others aren't going to like it. I'm not afraid or shy to speak my mind or be concerned if others are going to take offense or not.
To me, it's one thing to intentionally offend someone, and quite the other if others take offense without the intent. There is no communication handbook in the world, and we all gotta make our own ways...
No?
I am dysphoric, but let's give my metaphysic some credit.
I understand...
Speaking for myself: I have to deal with imperfection every day, no matter how much I strive to get rid of it or work on it. I actually appreciate when someone can rightfully point out an error in my understanding because that means it's from God, and I'm one step closer to correcting those imperfections. I now will ask someone back if they believe I was saying they were being irrational, as an example.
Can I get rid of sin and imperfection in this world? No, but I ever want to strive down that path...
Anyway, I appreciate you even being able to have this conversation with me. Few would even be able to...
Joshua
PS:
Interpretation is sin... Interpretation is the reason for every death and war throughout mankind's history.
Is that your interpretation, is it?
Perhaps...
But I think it's interesting what scripture says about the satan speaking lies from his own character.
"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies." Jhn 8:44
Wasn't the first lie that of twisting God's words?
-
Interpretation is sin... Interpretation is the reason for every death and war throughout mankind's history.
Is that your interpretation, is it?
Sounds like that's in the same genre as "I don't trust scholars," or "I don't trust Man." And so we're left with somebody's subjective judgment about what "truth" is, and there is no standard by which to judge it objectively.
We just have to trust the one who claims everything else, but his opinion, is bunk. I hope that's not what is meant by "interpretation is sin!"
I've heard my whole life how Religion is responsible for all the wars in history. And Religion is banned from the bar because it causes people to fight and argue--in a *bar* no less! ;)
-
I have to give it to you, very well said, well presented, and thought-provoking.
It's rare someone, in my experience, takes the time to actually understand (or the ability to) and then present a viable counter position. And this is vital in my ability to move forward in perfection, and recognize sinful conditions within myself, and assist others.
Well done indeed...
Ha, thanks. :) I just like words, and have spent far too much time thinking about how they might be received.
I will say that my entire life, from childhood on, has been surrounded by people who twist your words into negativity, and it is a soar point. Perhaps this is the reason I allow no leeway within myself as to interpretation. But in our imperfect state, it's inevitable. Trama is no excuse for sin, but it helps to recognize it as part of its origin.
I'm ASD as well (that is, in addition, to be being dysphoric) so to your hyper-awareness of negativity, I bring to the table a relentless commitment to taking everything literally, and then I don't stop there; oh, no, because to that I add a certain bluntness that puts a lot of people off.
Being ASD I also don't tend to get worked up over these kinds of discussions. I've often been accused of looking positively bored.
Perhaps... But I can't foresee someone taking offense to something being said; otherwise I would be constantly questioning myself.
There's something to be said for prescience. ;) For the record, I wasn't offended. Mind you, I'm not sure I know what offence is meant to feel like, so. It's fascinating when I see other people get offended.
To me, it's one thing to intentionally offend someone, and quite the other if others take offense without the intent. There is no communication handbook in the world, and we all gotta make our own ways...
No?
For sure.
Anyway, I appreciate you even being able to have this conversation with me. Few would even be able to...
Joshua
I'll take your word for it; but yes, I appreciate a good conversation. Or that could just be the estradiol. Apparently, I'm much more conversant than I used to be.
Don't go thinking the wrong thing, either. I'm a living ethical dilemma, so I have an interesting perspective. Well, I think I do, anyway.
Perhaps...
But I think it's interesting what scripture says about the satan speaking lies from his own character.
"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies." Jhn 8:44
Wasn't the first lie that of twisting God's words?
Hmm, no sure. I wouldn't consider it an interpretation of God's words, or even a reinterpretation.
He tells Eve - with silent Adam somewhere in the vicinity - that she won't die if she eats the fruit. That's a blatant lie, and it's the only lie. It reads like an attack against God's character: God told you this, but actually, He said this because He knows you'll be like Him... (we can wrestle with the implications of that some other time). God's words themselves aren't disputed.
It's interesting. If Eve truly believed she'd die if she touched the fruit, and in the course of her exchange with the snake, held the fruit and didn't die, then she likely would have been that much more swayed by the snake. There's no need to twist words: just leverage a misunderstanding and a seed of doubt.
I agree, by the way, that there is a definitive meaning to a given text and we should strive to determine what it is. That's often not an easy task.
-
Sounds like that's in the same genre as "I don't trust scholars," or "I don't trust Man."
Yep, and look at the spiritual dangers out there. JW's say you have to believe everything they do, or you aren't saved.
Trinitarians generally say one must believe the Trinity, or you're not saved.
And so on, and so on...
Yet both parties should realize that there is only one salvational subject, right? Faith in Christ, and then presenting that faith through our works.
Trusting the majority throughout Biblical history has always been a dangerous thing. It was usually only one person who had the truth, or at most a very small minority. And this was at any given time throughout history. Would it really be such a surprise if the same thing were to be today?
And so we're left with somebody's subjective judgment about what "truth" is, and there is no standard by which to judge it objectively.
I've run a forum for over a decade and have been part of others for two. Here are a few things I have come to believe.
#1 Changing someone's mind is one of the hardest things in this world, and in most cases, impossible.
#2 The only way the truth of scripture will be visible is by Christ Jesus' return. If someone on earth, such as the two witnesses, had the truth, no one is going to believe them unless or until God decides to fulfill prophecy in His time.
#3 I've come to believe Bible study is like climbing a mountain. There is only one peak that no one has yet reached; however, some people are higher up the hill than others. (The height of the hill represents facts in scripture within my scenario.) However, how factual someone is in scripture does not affect their confidence in what they understand. Everyone from the beginner with milk to the one with meat all believe they already have the truth.
Only God can repair what the world has done to His Word, in my humble opinion...
Joshua
-
Yep, and look at the spiritual dangers out there. JW's say you have to believe everything they do, or you aren't saved.
Differences between different Christian sects are one thing, and disrespect for Christian scholarship is another. Obviously, if a sect like the JWs do not adhere to the orthodoxy of the scholars, they will show no respect for them.
And Christians who are orthodox in their doctrine will not show respect for JW scholarship either, though they may respect the fact they are scholars. There will not, and cannot, be agreement on matters that determine what group you belong to.
Trinitarians generally say one must believe the Trinity, or you're not saved.
Yes, the Christian creeds were determined, by scholars and leaders, to present essential beliefs for Salvation. In this there is an historical consensus on what Christian Salvation means. Modalists believe in enough essential doctrine to have Salvation, in my opinion. But part of Trinitarian doctrine is belief in the Deity of Christ, and Modalists believe that.
In my view, it is essential to believe in the Deity of Christ. Otherwise, how are we forgiven by anything that Christ did? How do we receive the Holy Spirit from Christ? How do we become like Christ spiritually? Trinitarianism contains essential doctrine for Salvation, as I view it.
And so on, and so on...
Yet both parties should realize that there is only one salvational subject, right? Faith in Christ, and then presenting that faith through our works.
Only orthodox Christian groups agree on what Christian Salvation actually consists of. It isn't just "getting to heaven." It is getting to know Christ now. Salvation begins now. So no, not all Christian groups will agree because some liberal Christian groups downplay the supernatural aspects of Christianity, believing that Christ was just a good example of how we should behave. And they leave out much of the spiritual elements in this.
Trusting the majority throughout Biblical history has always been a dangerous thing. It was usually only one person who had the truth, or at most a very small minority. And this was at any given time throughout history. Would it really be such a surprise if the same thing were to be today?
I've run a forum for over a decade and have been part of others for two. Here are a few things I have come to believe.
#1 Changing someone's mind is one of the hardest things in this world, and in most cases, impossible.
People are generally resistant, but do they change? Of course! It's all about patience. Some will change, and some will not.
We do not make them change. We can serve others, and give them information. But God has to convict them in their soul, and only God can convert their hearts.
#2 The only way the truth of scripture will be visible is by Christ Jesus' return. If someone on earth, such as the two witnesses, had the truth, no one is going to believe them unless or until God decides to fulfill prophecy in His time.
I'm not sure what that means. But I don't at all agree. We don't need Jesus to Return to understand the truth of God's word, whether spoken to our conscience or read in the Scriptures. God gave mankind the Bible as a testimony and His people as witnesses to the truth. And God expects men to receive that testimony, or not.
#3 I've come to believe Bible study is like climbing a mountain. There is only one peak that no one has yet reached; however, some people are higher up the hill than others. (The height of the hill represents facts in scripture within my scenario.) However, how factual someone is in scripture does not affect their confidence in what they understand. Everyone from the beginner with milk to the one with meat all believe they already have the truth.
Only God can prepare what the world has done to His Word, in my humble opinion...
Joshua
Well Joshua, I don't understand what you mean by things God has "done to His Word?" But I do agree that people are generally proud, largely because others are always trying to devalue them, and they get defensive.
But as proud as we all are, we can respond to God's word. We can humble ourselves, and enjoy the meekness of Christ through the Spirit he wants to give us.
This is basic Christianity--not just a pile of Scriptural knowledge, but the personal knowledge of how to apply them in our lives, producing the fruits of good character. Christ has to live within us, and produce these fruits as we learn to work with him, and learn to obey him.
-
In my view, it is essential to believe in the Deity of Christ. Otherwise, how are we forgiven by anything that Christ did? How do we receive the Holy Spirit from Christ? How do we become like Christ spiritually? Trinitarianism contains essential doctrine for Salvation, as I view it.
Let me give you some examples of what I mean.
I don't believe the Trinity is Biblical.
I do believe in the Deity of Jesus.
I don't believe Jesus was eternal.
I believe Jesus was created.
But I do believe Jesus is God/GOD.
I believe the new kingdom is on earth, not in Heaven.
I don't believe in life after death.
I don't believe in the eternal soul.
I don't believe in a place of Hell.
I believe when you die, you cease to exist.
I don't believe these subjects are salvational; I believe only faith in Christ brings salvation. This subject of the Trinity is extremely complex, and I just don't believe it is required understanding for faith. Even those who hold the Trinitarian view themselves claim they don't understand it. Now I can explain how the Trinity is derived from front to back, upside and down, but I can also show you why it's false. I mean, I have a whole chapter on it in my book available at any retailer. (Link below)
So you see, you and I have very different belief structures all taken from that same book, and we can't both be right. There is only one right answer to every one of these points.
Even though we disagree, I see us as brothers because I believe our common faith in Christ Jesus is what brings salvation, but you may disagree. There were disagreements in the early church over things like circumcision, but that didn't affect their brotherhood.
Either way, every single Christian I know has varying understandings in scripture, and over the years, I have just determined that the only way the truth of God's Word will be "repaired" in the world will be through the fulfillment of prophecy.
But that's just me...
Joshua
-
Let me give you some examples of what I mean.
I don't believe the Trinity is Biblical.
I do believe in the Deity of Jesus.
I don't believe Jesus was eternal.
I believe Jesus was created.
But I do believe Jesus is God/GOD.
The language you use, if you are learned in the subject, is intentionally stating heresy. The Trinity is biblical, regardless of whether the word "trinity" is used. Jesus, being Deity, is eternal. Jesus, as a divine Person, was not created--only his human personality was created.
Therefore, your claim to believe that Jesus is God is contradicted by your belief that Jesus was not eternal but created. Pure heresy. You have a religion that is foreign to conventional Christianity. And I'm disinterested in building bridges between conventional Christianity and heretical Christianity.
These issues are so important that for many they are what enables or prevents the salvation experience. And I want to preserve the message that brings the experience of salvation.
I believe the new kingdom is on earth, not in Heaven.
I don't believe in life after death.
I don't believe in the eternal soul.
I don't believe in a place of Hell.
I believe when you die, you cease to exist.
More deliberate attacks on conventional Christianity. The Scriptures teach, and the historic Church has taught, that the Kingdom of God is "near," but not yet "here." Paul warned, in 2 Thes 2, against those who would claim that the Kingdom comes prematurely. Jesus warned of the same in his Olivet Address.
The eternal soul of Man was created in the image of God, who is eternal. When Man was offered to eat from the Tree of Life, he was offered not just eternal existence, which he already had. But he was being offered an eternal spiritual life with God, a fellowship with God that lasts forever.
But Christians have long understood that there will be eternal punishment and eternal reward, since Man lives forever after the image of his Creator. Now a lot of these issues have been repeated, in a perfunctory, obedient way for centuries such that many Christians perhaps don't understand them or represent them properly. But to just take a stand against them reflects a disinterest in common belief with historic Christianity. So why do you seek brotherhood with conservative Christians? Seek fellowship with liberal or cultic Christians--they may accept you into fellowship with themselves.
I don't believe these subjects are salvational; I believe only faith in Christ brings salvation.
It really doesn't matter what you believe. It's what is true to God that matters, with respect to salvation. I believe a lot of people will get through the pearly gates with lots of errors in their history. And it will be their loss. Why not get it right, and serve God for real?
You're not talking about the "faith" formula taught by Paul. You've concocted a different gospel of faith that is foreign to historic Christianity. Faith *requires* a proper object. And if that object, ie God, requires our acceptance of a certain set of believes to present His gospel to others, then we need to do that. Otherwise, we won't be delivering the message of salvation to anyone.
This subject of the Trinity is extremely complex, and I just don't believe it is required understanding for faith. Even those who hold the Trinitarian view themselves claim they don't understand it.
The Trinity is complex, but I do understand it. I've explained it many times on several forums. The Father is the source. The Son is the human expression. And the Spirit is actively represented in finite space. They are all necessary for God to deliver salvation to men. They are all God, and they all represent distinct persons in the Godhood.
Now I can explain how the Trinity is derived from front to back, upside and down, but I can also show you why it's false. I mean, I have a whole chapter on it in my book available at any retailer. (Link below)
I'm hoping in the future you write a different kind of book!
So you see, you and I have very different belief structures all taken from that same book, and we can't both be right. There is only one right answer to every one of these points.
You're right. Both you and historic Christianity are at odds. Only one can be right.
Even though we disagree, I see us as brothers because I believe our common faith in Christ Jesus is what brings salvation, but you may disagree. There were disagreements in the early church over things like circumcision, but that didn't affect their brotherhood.
Yes, but you've disagreed on the essentials that make Christianity what it is. You've chosen to belong to a set of beliefs that historic Christianity is disallowed from signing onto, or it will lose both its identity and its power.
Either way, every single Christian I know has varying understandings in scripture, and over the years, I have just determined that the only way the truth of God's Word will be "repaired" in the world will be through the fulfillment of prophecy.
But that's just me...
Joshua
Yes, we disagree on that too. Prophecy in the end will, of course, resolve everything, because the show will be over, and all will be revealed. But for now, to wait until then and neglect what we have now for salvation is a big mistake.
To experience true salvation, you need to believe the essentials of the faith, not as if you're signing onto a list of demands, but rather, because logically, if we don't do what God says, then He won't do for us what we need to have Him do, and what only He can do. Not my plan, but it's His plan.
-
Trinitarians generally say one must believe the Trinity, or you're not saved.
That's a shame. A more rigorous Trinitarian position would be that an understanding of the Trinity is essential for a proper understanding of God as He's revealed Himself to us. But, affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity isn't soteriologically significant, or else there would be plenty of otherwise faithful Christians, damned, for not holding to this or that doctrinal belief.
I don't believe the Trinity is Biblical.
I do believe in the Deity of Jesus.
I don't believe Jesus was eternal.
I believe Jesus was created.
But I do believe Jesus is God/GOD.
Do you mean created, or generated? I'm wondering how you believe Jesus is created, God, but not a separate God?
Now I can explain how the Trinity is derived from front to back, upside and down, but I can also show you why it's false. I mean, I have a whole chapter on it in my book available at any retailer.
A whole chapter. :)
There were disagreements in the early church over things like circumcision, but that didn't affect their brotherhood.
Tell that to the 4th century.
(It's interesting how we've now come back to the views theMadJW was espousing, or well, being belligerent about.)
-
Trinitarians generally say one must believe the Trinity, or you're not saved.
That's a shame. A more rigorous Trinitarian position would be that an understanding of the Trinity is essential for a proper understanding of God as He's revealed Himself to us. But, affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity isn't soteriologically significant, or else there would be plenty of otherwise faithful Christians, damned, for not holding to this or that doctrinal belief.
I don't agree with this. Yes, the lack of Trinitarian belief does not necessarily damn, but that doesn't mean it isn't essential in the salvation experience. It is not just Trinitarian theology that must be accepted, but the corollaries to that theology, which is recognition that Jesus, as God, is the source of our salvation. If you don't accept that, what will be the object of your salvation?
Your underlying assumption seems to be that salvation is just "getting into heaven." Salvation is that, for sure, but it's much more broad than that. Part of the salvation experience is in serving God and in bringing the message of salvation to others. If we're not equipped to bring truth to others that can bring them into the true salvation experience, then we've failed in our mission. We must "get saved," but we will have dishonored both God and ourselves by not serving Him properly and by not properly representing Him.
Again, true salvation is not just getting into heaven, but much more, having a spiritual fellowship with God right now. To bring people into that experience we must serve God by bringing them the message that Jesus is God and the source of God's redemptive word. Through him we can receive a pure spirituality even though we are convicted as law-breakers. This enables others to experience the righteousness of grace.
-
I don't agree with this. Yes, the lack of Trinitarian belief does not necessarily damn, but that doesn't mean it isn't essential in the salvation experience. It is not just Trinitarian theology that must be accepted, but the corollaries to that theology, which is recognition that Jesus, as God, is the source of our salvation. If you don't accept that, what will be the object of your salvation?
It's quite possible to view Jesus as the source of our salvation without also believing in the doctrine of the Trinity. Joshua above notes his belief in Jesus' diety/Godship, and so what we have are distinct questions: (1) is Jesus God? (2) is the doctrine of the Trinity faithful to Scripture? Joshua would answer: Yes to (1) and No to (2).
I think the danger lies in the possibility that disagreeing with the doctrine of the trinity then severely misinforms one's view of Jesus. If we then doubt the claims Jesus made about Himself, then that's where soteriological questions start to spring up. But, it's also not our place to make soteriological pronouncements, even in light of extreme theological disagreement. We just can't know what's going on between a person and God.
Your underlying assumption seems to be that salvation is just "getting into heaven."
My underlying assumption is that Jesus looks for faithful individuals, and faithful individuals aren't necessarily identical to individuals who have their theology in order. Salvation, for me, is about a reconciled relationship with Jesus, and then wherever that leads (new creation) is wherever that leads. Jesus might say, "You were faithful but you didn't get to know me as well as you could have", or "You were faithful but you believed some things that eehhhh weren't quite on point". Either way, it's our faith in Jesus that matters.
Faith is difficult and it's complicated.
-
The language you use, if you are learned in the subject, is intentionally stating heresy. The Trinity is biblical, regardless of whether the word "trinity" is used. Jesus, being Deity, is eternal. Jesus, as a divine Person, was not created--only his human personality was created.
Therefore, your claim to believe that Jesus is God is contradicted by your belief that Jesus was not eternal but created. Pure heresy. You have a religion that is foreign to conventional Christianity. And I'm disinterested in building bridges between conventional Christianity and heretical Christianity.
More deliberate attacks on conventional Christianity. The Scriptures teach, and the historic Church has taught, that the Kingdom of God is "near," but not yet "here." Paul warned, in 2 Thes 2, against those who would claim that the Kingdom comes prematurely. Jesus warned of the same in his Olivet Address.
Woe, the judge tried and jury. A complete conviction in one post. Where is the stake, and let's bring the fire...lol Don't worry, I already know and understand this kind of response is from a lack of knowledge.
Good thing salvation comes from faith alone in Christ Jesus. Anything beyond that is from men.
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." Luk 6:37
(It's interesting how we've now come back to the views theMadJW was espousing, or well, being belligerent about.)
From what I've read from that individual on here, I am in disagreement with what they presented...
-
Let's put that "judge not" thing in context.
The "not judging" is not an instruction to refrain from sound judgment, but a warning simply that one will be judged by the same standard by which one judges, as is seen in Matthew's account.
Yes, salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone, but only in a Jesus that is indeed God and not a created being. Jesus is also the name of my landscaper, but he won't get me to heaven. Now, I understand that depending on the exact nature of the description of Jesus folks may have a Jesus/God doctrine that is not Trinitarian but is nonetheless a belief that Jesus is God i.e., eternal and not created (I'm thinking Oneness Pentecostalism, just off the cuff).
But in order for faith in Jesus to be salvific, Jesus has to be Deity and equal in essence and nature with God, otherwise that whole atonement/propitiation thing falls apart.
And the response is not necessarily from "lack of knowledge." The response could just as easily be from "a more complete and informed knowledge."
-
I don't agree with this. Yes, the lack of Trinitarian belief does not necessarily damn, but that doesn't mean it isn't essential in the salvation experience. It is not just Trinitarian theology that must be accepted, but the corollaries to that theology, which is recognition that Jesus, as God, is the source of our salvation. If you don't accept that, what will be the object of your salvation?
It's quite possible to view Jesus as the source of our salvation without also believing in the doctrine of the Trinity. Joshua above notes his belief in Jesus' diety/Godship, and so what we have are distinct questions: (1) is Jesus God? (2) is the doctrine of the Trinity faithful to Scripture? Joshua would answer: Yes to (1) and No to (2).
I think the danger lies in the possibility that disagreeing with the doctrine of the trinity then severely misinforms one's view of Jesus. If we then doubt the claims Jesus made about Himself, then that's where soteriological questions start to spring up. But, it's also not our place to make soteriological pronouncements, even in light of extreme theological disagreement. We just can't know what's going on between a person and God.
Your underlying assumption seems to be that salvation is just "getting into heaven."
My underlying assumption is that Jesus looks for faithful individuals, and faithful individuals aren't necessarily identical to individuals who have their theology in order. Salvation, for me, is about a reconciled relationship with Jesus, and then wherever that leads (new creation) is wherever that leads. Jesus might say, "You were faithful but you didn't get to know me as well as you could have", or "You were faithful but you believed some things that eehhhh weren't quite on point". Either way, it's our faith in Jesus that matters.
Faith is difficult and it's complicated.
Your answers are always thoughtful, and I appreciate that and respect it. Nevertheless, I have to say....
You're at least partly right, as I see it. People were getting saved in the Early Church well before Trinitarian Theology was formulated as a creed. But as I said, its the corollaries to this doctrine that are essential to salvation, which is why it was formulated in the 1st place.
It was in the 1st few centuries of the Church that certain heretics tried to locate loopholes where the doctrine of God and the Son could be exploited. One of those early places of vulnerability was in understanding how the Son could be divine and yet separate, as a person, from God the Father. Rejecting Jesus as divine is capable of destroying the salvation experience, if not salvation itself.
And as I said, we are not just talking about "getting into heaven." Rather, we're talking about the salvation experience, in which Jesus in a sense enters into our life through the Spirit, the Spirit Himself coming in through our obedience. If we don't accept Jesus as divine, and his word as redemptive, we're not going to understand and demonstrate real spiritual change.
In this I'm not making soteriological pronouncements. I'm just stating the fact that certain doctrines, like Trinitarianism, were found to be necessary in an atmosphere of opposition, where people sought to confuse faith and therefore destroy the salvation experience. Christian cults, like JW and Mormonism, do that today. In making subtle or even not-so-subtle changes, true faith in Christ is lost, along with a real spiritual change that represents salvation.
It is not too harsh to say that ungodly people deliberately do this, confuse essential doctrines about God, because they do not wish to believe a complete spiritual change is possible. That would mean people have to give up their autonomous life, making choices apart from God's word.
But we are to live in partnership with our Creator. He always gets the last word. And if we're obedient, we will receive His Spirit, and be able to receive the redemption Christ died to give us.
-
The "not judging" is not an instruction to refrain from sound judgment, but a warning simply that one will be judged by the same standard by which one judges, as is seen in Matthew's account.
Yea, but how sure are you to be in the judge's seat? Sounds like to me you're saying only you have the truth, and are in the position to condemn me based on you're more righteous knowledge...lol
Look, like I said, unlike you, I see you as a brother because only faith in Christ brings salvation.
Yes, salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone, but
There is no BUT in scripture, that is from man... ;)
With all due respect...
Joshua
-
before Trinitarian Theology was formulated as a creed.
Formulated by man, no?
which is why it was formulated in the 1st place.
Formulated by man, no? lol
I'm just stating the fact that certain doctrines, like Trinitarianism, were found to be necessary in an atmosphere of opposition, where people sought to confuse faith and therefore destroy the salvation experience. Christian cults, like JW and Mormonism, do that today. In making subtle or even not-so-subtle changes, true faith in Christ is lost, along with a real spiritual change that represents salvation.
It is not too harsh to say that ungodly people deliberately do this, confuse essential doctrines about God, because they do not wish to believe a complete spiritual change is possible. That would mean people have to give up their autonomous life, making choices apart from God's word.
So I am ungodly now? This doctrine you hold sure has a lot of hate behind it... I guess that's why heretics were burned at the stake.
Joshua
-
The "not judging" is not an instruction to refrain from sound judgment, but a warning simply that one will be judged by the same standard by which one judges, as is seen in Matthew's account.
Yea, but how sure are you to be in the judge's seat? Sounds like to me you're saying only you have the truth, and are in the position to condemn me based on you're more righteous knowledge...lol
Look, like I said, unlike you, I see you as a brother because only faith in Christ brings salvation.
Yes, salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone, but
There is no BUT in scripture, that is from man... ;)
With all due respect...
Joshua
The phrase "with a due respect" also means "but without respect if it is not due," so it is essentially meaningless. I don't need respect.
I am certainly willing to sit in the judgment seat; I take that risk. Just as you say that only you have the truth, so do I. So, an enigma, nu? I am not condemning you. I am criticizing what I believe to be an inaccurate understanding of Scripture in relation to the person of Jesus.
And no, you are correct, if you believe in a created Jesus, then no, I don't believe that you are a brother in Christ.
Faith in a broken chair will get your butt on the floor.
Faith in a frayed rope will get you dead at the bottom of the cliff.
Faith in a false Jesus will get you condemned to hell for all eternity.
Faith is only as meaningful as the object upon which one places that faith, and faith in a created Jesus is a false hope.
-
Where is the "hate"?
Does disagreement with you = hate?
And yes, if one teaches a doctrine that is not supported by Scripture, then yes, that would make the proponent "ungodly" by definition.
It is what it is. If the standard of "Godliness" is "speaking that which God speaks," then yes, the antithesis of "speaking that which God speaks" would be by definition "ungodliness"
-
The phrase "with a due respect" also means "but without respect if it is not due," so it is essentially meaningless. I don't need respect.
I respect people out of my Christian love, not because you demand it.
I am certainly willing to sit in the judgment seat; I take that risk.
I sincerely hope that works out for you.
Just as you say that only you have the truth, so do I.
That's a lie; I never said that.
And no, you are correct, if you believe in a created Jesus, then no, I don't believe that you are a brother in Christ.
That's too bad. Christian love is lost in you; that's a shame.
Faith in a broken chair will get your butt on the floor.
Faith in a frayed rope will get you dead at the bottom of the cliff.
Faith in a false Jesus will get you condemned to hell for all eternity.
Faith is only as meaningful as the object upon which one places that faith, and faith in a created Jesus is a false hope.
Well, good thing my faith in Christ is all that matters.
I pray that your seat of judgement position is not counted against you, friend.
Joshua
-
And yes, if one teaches a doctrine that is not supported by Scripture, then yes, that would make the proponent "ungodly" by definition.
It is what it is. If the standard of "Godliness" is "speaking that which God speaks," then yes, the antithesis of "speaking that which God speaks" would be by definition "ungodliness"
So if I believe what you say is not scriptural it is okay to call you ungodly?
And you wonder where the hate is?
-
Christian love does not require one to call a Studebaker an apple. In reality, Christian love requires one to call a spade a spade. Truth sets us free; nothing else.
We all sit in judgment every time we set forth and proclaim a doctrinal position; by both implication and inference, when we affirmatively say "X is true" related to the Scripture, we are also saying "all not X is false". We can't say otherwise, or else we really do not have the courage of our convictions.
Yes, your faith in Christ is all that matters, but only if that faith is actually in Christ and not in some created being.
-
And yes, if one teaches a doctrine that is not supported by Scripture, then yes, that would make the proponent "ungodly" by definition.
It is what it is. If the standard of "Godliness" is "speaking that which God speaks," then yes, the antithesis of "speaking that which God speaks" would be by definition "ungodliness"
So if I believe what you say is not scriptural it is okay to call you ungodly?
And you wonder where the hate is?
Sure, if you believe that my doctrine is ungodly, then it is perfectly OK to call me ungodly. I have no problem with that.
-
Christian love does not require one to call a Studebaker an apple. In reality, Christian love requires one to call a spade a spade. Truth sets us free; nothing else.
We all sit in judgment every time we set forth and proclaim a doctrinal position; by both implication and inference, when we affirmatively say "X is true" related to the Scripture, we are also saying "all not X is false". We can't say otherwise, or else we really do not have the courage of our convictions.
Yes, your faith in Christ is all that matters, but only if that faith is actually in Christ and not in some created being.
This same position was held by every executioner executing every so-called heretic such as Martin Luther throughout history. Every righteous war had God on its side.
Do you think your righteous stance is anything new?
-
Didn't say that it was new.
I don't understand the point. Is "every executioner" supposed to be persuasive in some way, or supportive of the idea that "no one may express a doctrinal statement" if opposed?
This is the mindset of the current post-Christian deconstructionist worldview.
Truth matters.
-
Didn't say that it was new.
I don't understand the point. Is "every executioner" supposed to be persuasive in some way, or supportive of the idea that "no one may express a doctrinal statement" if opposed?
This is the mindset of the current post-Christian deconstructionist worldview.
Truth matters.
As much I love going back and forth with someone who believes they are right over someone else, or more righteous, I think we should move on from this specific conversation.
-
This same position was held by every executioner executing every so-called heretic such as Martin Luther throughout history. Every righteous war had God on its side.
Why do you think Martin Luther was executed as a heretic?
-
This same position was held by every executioner executing every so-called heretic such as Martin Luther throughout history. Every righteous war had God on its side.
Why do you think Martin Luther was executed as a heretic?
Yes, I misspoke and was wrong. He was considered a heretic and was tried, but died of natural causes.
Many heretics were condemned and died for the faith, was what I was getting at.
-
Your answers are always thoughtful, and I appreciate that and respect it. Nevertheless, I have to say....
You're at least partly right, as I see it. People were getting saved in the Early Church well before Trinitarian Theology was formulated as a creed. But as I said, its the corollaries to this doctrine that are essential to salvation, which is why it was formulated in the 1st place.
It was in the 1st few centuries of the Church that certain heretics tried to locate loopholes where the doctrine of God and the Son could be exploited. One of those early places of vulnerability was in understanding how the Son could be divine and yet separate, as a person, from God the Father. Rejecting Jesus as divine is capable of destroying the salvation experience, if not salvation itself.
And as I said, we are not just talking about "getting into heaven." Rather, we're talking about the salvation experience, in which Jesus in a sense enters into our life through the Spirit, the Spirit Himself coming in through our obedience. If we don't accept Jesus as divine, and his word as redemptive, we're not going to understand and demonstrate real spiritual change.
In this I'm not making soteriological pronouncements. I'm just stating the fact that certain doctrines, like Trinitarianism, were found to be necessary in an atmosphere of opposition, where people sought to confuse faith and therefore destroy the salvation experience. Christian cults, like JW and Mormonism, do that today. In making subtle or even not-so-subtle changes, true faith in Christ is lost, along with a real spiritual change that represents salvation.
It is not too harsh to say that ungodly people deliberately do this, confuse essential doctrines about God, because they do not wish to believe a complete spiritual change is possible. That would mean people have to give up their autonomous life, making choices apart from God's word.
But we are to live in partnership with our Creator. He always gets the last word. And if we're obedient, we will receive His Spirit, and be able to receive the redemption Christ died to give us.
I think affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity is necessary for the proper understanding of God, so we agree on that. I don't think it's necessarily salvific, and to make it salvific changes the standard of salvation. We agree again, then, on the risks: if one does not believe the claims Jesus makes about His person, then we have to wonder -- not that it's our place to make soteriological determinations. (To say nothing about the denial of the Holy Spirit!)
So I think it's right to say that the doctrine of the trinity is required to properly understand God and the Christian faith. It's not required necessarily for salvation.
-
Yes, I misspoke and was wrong. He was considered a heretic and was tried, but died of natural causes.
Many heretics were condemned and died for the faith, was what I was getting at.
Right. Well, I think you're also wrong about ascribing to RK "Th[e] same position ... held by every executioner executing every so-called heretic". That's getting a bit ridiculous.
-
Right. Well, I think you're also wrong about ascribing to RK "Th[e] same position ... held by every executioner executing every so-called heretic". That's getting a bit ridiculous.
I may have exaggerated by the use "every," but heresy was the cause of countless executions. That was my point. Every execution for heresey.
-
Alas, I haven't done a good execution in years...
As Argus Filch says, "I miss the old punishments."
-
Joshua, I don't understand this invocating of historical executions. Does this somehow strengthen your position? Don't see the relevance at all.
Perhaps you feel unduly persecuted(?).
-
I may have exaggerated by the use "every," but heresy was the cause of countless executions. That was my point. Every execution for heresey.
I don't think the "every" has much to do with it.
Your point, as I understand it, like Jordan Peterson's point, is that RK's attitude and viewpoint is the same attitude and viewpoint shared by those who, in the past, executed heretics. Unlike Peterson's point, I don't see how yours is justifiable. There's certainly no necessary connection between "I think your view is heretical" and "now you must die!".
Like IMINXTC I'm also wondering what the purpose of making this connection is. Do you see yourself as a "true believer", persecuted as such?
-
Like IMINXTC I'm also wondering what the purpose of making this connection is. Do you see yourself as a "true believer", persecuted as such?
You apparently have not read past #53 in Chronology. If you would do that, that would great. Thanks...
Joshua
Correction: We both posted at the same time.
-
Your point, as I understand it, like Jordan Peterson's point, is that RK's attitude and viewpoint is the same attitude and viewpoint shared by those who, in the past, executed heretics. Unlike Peterson's point, I don't see how yours is justifiable. There's certainly no necessary connection between "I think your view is heretical" and "now you must die!".
In my opinion claiming someone else does not have salvation is akin to it, taking someone else's life in their hands. Judging life or death. Putting yourself in seat of judgement.
Again, that's my opinion.
-
You apparently have not read past #53 in Chronology. If you would do that, that would great. Thanks...
Joshua
Correction: We both posted at the same time.
I had read what Randy and RK wrote.
I'm not sure that Randy was talking about you specifically, although that's certainly how it could be read. RK's post seems fairly incontrovertible:
And yes, if one teaches a doctrine that is not supported by Scripture, then yes, that would make the proponent "ungodly" by definition.
It is what it is. If the standard of "Godliness" is "speaking that which God speaks," then yes, the antithesis of "speaking that which God speaks" would be by definition "ungodliness".
Which, by extension and in light of your view of Jesus, makes you "'ungodly' by definition". There seems to be room here, however, for the same in reverse: Trinitarians are ungodly, in your view, for holding to the doctrine of the trinity.
Does the conditional hold true, though? It's not airtight, there's room for it to be challenged...
Anyway, this then brings me back to my post above.
-
In my opinion claiming someone else does not have salvation is akin to it, taking someone else's life in their hands. Judging life or death. Putting yourself in seat of judgement.
Again, that's my opinion.
Well, that's certainly a stretch that you're entitled to. Such catastrophic thinking, though.
I haven't found where someone said you weren't saved. I see doubt expressed as to your relationship with Jesus vis-a-vis your apparently improper understanding of who He is, but doubt expressed is not a proclamation made. Unless I've missed something?
-
Woe, the judge tried and jury. A complete conviction in one post. Where is the stake, and let's bring the fire...lol Don't worry, I already know and understand this kind of response is from a lack of knowledge.
Not at all. I have lots of knowledge. You seem to lack knowledge about what doctrinal orthodoxy is? But if you do know, and you may very well know, then why are you attacking me as if I should agree with statements that contradict my Religion? You may get saved with your heterodoxy, but in my view, God will not put His spiritual stamp of approval on it, and it will count for nothing in regard to serving in His world mission.
Good thing salvation comes from faith alone in Christ Jesus. Anything beyond that is from men.
Anybody can put their faith in an idea. True faith embraces the spirituality of Christ through obedience to His word directly to their conscience. If your doctrine is awry, so is your recognition of what God is saying to you.
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." Luk 6:37
This is a very misused Scripture. Sure, if a person's *spirit* is judgmental, then the Christian is prohibited from doing that. But the kind of judgment called *discernment* is definitely the province of the Christian, who is called upon to "study to show yourself approved of God," in order to properly defend the truth against those who would pervert it.
Beyond that, Paul specifically indicated Christians are judges, even judging angels, but certainly also judging men who pervert the truth of God. Our spirit should be to want to save, but on behalf of those who would be saved we must defend the truth and risk misunderstanding and false accusation.
-
Not at all. I have lots of knowledge. You seem to lack knowledge about what doctrinal orthodoxy is? But if you do know, and you may very well know, then why are you attacking me as if I should agree with statements that contradict my Religion?
I don't blindly accept apostolic tradition, and you do. Because of that, you judge.
Let's move on.
-
For justification, as is now being discussed as saved I feel that a complete understanding of the Trinity is not required by scripture. When I came to faith at 21, I had very little understanding of the Bible. At that time I certainly never understood the Trinity or much less heard of the word.
Although, part of that salvation is sanctification. The process of God maturing the believer. God is faithful and as He reveals Himself this is where the refines our understanding of His nature
-
I don't blindly accept apostolic tradition, and you do. Because of that, you judge.
Let's move on.
Uhh, no.
Even if Randy blindly accepted apostolic tradition (that's quite the assumption), which I strongly doubt, this would not explain why, in your view, he judges. You have on your forum the words "true believers", which is itself an exclusionary and judgmental term. Is that because you blindly accept apostolic tradition, or because you understand, as you do, that there is a right and a wrong way to approach Scripture?
-
The Scriptures teach, and the historic Church has taught, that the Kingdom of God is "near," but not yet "here." Paul warned, in 2 Thes 2, against those who would claim that the Kingdom comes prematurely. Jesus warned of the same in his Olivet Address.
I don't believe the kingdom is here yet, I just believe it will be on earth. You do know that most scholars in the so-called "traditional church" believe the same thing, such as John Piper, Jim Hamilton (professor of New Testament at Southern Seminary in Louisville), Sam Storms (pastor of Bridgeway Church in Oklahoma City), and Doug Wilson (pastor of Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho).
Here: It should start at 36:43.
-
I don't blindly accept apostolic tradition, and you do. Because of that, you judge.
Let's move on.
Apostolic tradition is usually ascribed to the RCC. I haven't seen anyone in this thread that is apologetic to the RCC. Am I misunderstanding your meaning of apostolic tradition?
You've also brought up judging several times as if it's something that a believer shouldn't do.
You quoted Luke 6:37 Do not judge...
But, Jesus goes on in Luke 6:42 saying remove the plank from your own eye. He doesn’t stop there. If He did you would be right in saying don’t judge. He say’s to examine your eye for a plank. Take it out then remove the speck. Examine yourself, then examine the other person. With that context He’s teaching us not to judge with a hypocritical judgment.
Jesus also said:
John 7:24 "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."
Paul goes on to teach…
1 Corinthians 5:3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Paul then goes on to say…
1 Corinthians 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened.
As can be seen it’s important to judge any leaven that my reside in the lump, then put it out.
Your beliefs are being judged. I see nothing wrong with that. Your salvation has also been judged. The Bible encourages us to do that. Now if I were to say that you are forever lost and have no chance of salvation that would be a judgment to condemnation that has gone too far.
-
I don't believe the kingdom is here yet, I just believe it will be on earth...
I fixed the embed for you (just the normal YouTube URL is fine for embedding).
And I agree: heaven is the domain of God, while this creation - earth, both old and eventually the new - is the domain of humanity (or our origin, at least -- here's to hoping for endless galaxies!). When in the new creation we'll reside on the new earth, in our new, glorified bodies (:fingers-crossed:). Well, or maybe there will be a meeting of heaven and earth.
It's a pretty good listen, too. The song, I mean: 'Heaven coming down'.
-
Apostolic tradition is usually ascribed to the RCC. I haven't seen anyone in this thread that is apologetic to the RCC. Am I misunderstanding your meaning of apostolic tradition?
The Reformation dealt with indulgences and salvation through faith. The doctrine of the Trinity and the eternal soul continued on into modern churches.
Unless you can correct me, I view these as apostolic traditions.
You've also brought up judging several times as if it's something that a believer shouldn't do.
You quoted Luke 6:37 Do not judge...
But, Jesus goes on in Luke 6:42 saying remove the plank from your own eye. He doesn’t stop there. If He did you would be right in saying don’t judge. He say’s to examine your eye for a plank. Take it out then remove the speck. Examine yourself, then examine the other person. With that context He’s teaching us not to judge with a hypocritical judgment.
My issue was others judging another's salvation, whether directly or through personal doctrinal beliefs. Just because someone doesn't agree with my doctrine, doesn't mean I should condemn them. And if your doctrine condemns a Christian who confesses Christ and the Diety of Him, but through your belief structure, that's not enough and say I'm not saved (through suggestive posturing), then that doesn't seem like a Christ-like doctrine to me.
I believe faith in Christ brings salvation. That was what the whole Reformation was about. What's the difference between the Trinity and indulgences? The church said, "Okay, we'll get rid of indulgences, but you still have to believe the Trinity." Huh? The Bible doesn't say that. You are excepting the traditions of men, if that's what you believe.
If the Trinity cannot be debated, then as far I see, the Nicean Creed is excepted without exception, and this was my comment about apostolic tradition. Others say I'm required to believe a man-made doctrine in order to be saved; that's the same exact thing Martin Luther had a problem with, with indulgences.
This is my opinion.
I know others don't agree with me; I'm just sharing a view of an obvious outsider. I love to hear other understandings; that's why I'm here. I learn more from hearing new things than from sitting with my own understandings. I don't wish to just blindly accept apostolic traditions...
I do not believe Jesus intended for us to judge by separating the sheep from goats before His return by determining others' salvation based on whether they agree with our belief structures or not. That should be an obvious one, in my opinion. The Trinity cannot be contradicted? Come on...lol
You do know that there were those in the Nicean Creed that argued against Jesus being eternal. And the majority chose the Trinity. So, what gives the right to a Trinitarian to demand that salvation is reliant on believing the Trinity? Because men voted on it? Who hasn't read the history of God's people? When in the Bible was the majority correct? Every step of the way, God's people errored, so I should just believe blindly?
Now if I were to say that you are forever lost and have no chance of salvation that would be a judgment to condemnation that has gone too far.
I have studied the Trinity for forty years; and I still don't believe it. So what say you? Will you also say I am not saved and will not be redeemed?
Joshua
-
I don't believe the kingdom is here yet, I just believe it will be on earth...
I fixed the embed for you (just the normal YouTube URL is fine for embedding).
And I agree: heaven is the domain of God, while this creation - earth, both old and eventually the new - is the domain of humanity (or our origin, at least -- here's to hoping for endless galaxies!). When in the new creation we'll reside on the new earth, in our new, glorified bodies (:fingers-crossed:). Well, or maybe there will be a meeting of heaven and earth.
It's a pretty good listen, too. The song, I mean: 'Heaven coming down'.
Amen... See, we are not so far apart after all, are we?
Joshua
-
Let’s talk about Jesus
Is he a created being?
If he is God, has he always been God or did he at some point become God?
Let’s stop the dance
-
Let’s talk about Jesus
Is he a created being?
If he is God, has he always been God or did he at some point become God?
Let’s stop the dance
I have already started the discussion in the thread Who is God? Feel free to join in there, and I'll share with you everything...
Joshua
-
No need to deflect
Simple questions
What do you say?
-
No need to deflect
Simple questions
What do you say?
Dude, you know how complex this subject is, and you just expect me to explain in a single post? (facepalm)
I've already told you I believe Jesus was created, but I've also told you I believe in His Deity, and that He is God.
The best place to start is John chapter 1. If you'd like feel free to go to that thread because I believe this thread on The Temple Sanctuary is pretty full with this subject as it is.
Joshua
-
So how do you believe a created being became God?
-
Amen... See, we are not so far apart after all, are we?
Joshua
Doctrinally? In many ways probably not, and in others, significantly. There's no value judgment either way.
But it cannot be understated that our views of Jesus are mutually exclusive: we're either both wrong, or one is right and the other is wrong. This extends to our understanding of God at a foundational level, then into how God operates in the world, and so on. It impacts on Jesus' question: "who do you say that I am?" There's nothing trivial about this. 10 feet is for most people an impassable chasm. 10 feet is nothing.
Of course, this presumably places me in the category of 'false believer' according to your schema. So, there's quite a lot to be said.
Anyway, engagement with a position or an argument is just that, and too many people take that engagement as a personal criticism.
-
So how do you believe a created being became God?
Coronation
-
Ok so after this coronation, how many Gods are there?
Is one more powerful than the other?
-
But it cannot be understated that our views of Jesus are mutually exclusive: we're either both wrong, or one is right, and the other is wrong. This extends to our understanding of God at a foundational level, then into how God operates in the world, and so on. It impacts on Jesus' question: "who do you say that I am?" There's nothing trivial about this. 10 feet is for most people an impassable chasm. 10 feet is nothing.
We agree on everything about Jesus, who He was, who He is, our faith in Him. Whether He had a beginning or not causes a huge separation? Do you know that many Trinitarians believe that Jesus' personality was created when He came to the earth (just as one believes here)? That description is no different than what I have said, in my opinion... I believe the personality of Christ was created, but before He came to earth. And that is such a huge difference? It's a huge difference because the doctrine of the Trinity requires it, not the Bible.
Of course, this presumably places me in the category of 'false believer' according to your schema. So, there's quite a lot to be said.
I have already said the Trinity is not a salvational subject, and I'm not someone to judge anyone's salvation. I've already called you a brother/friend through our common belief in Christ. I'm not sure where you're getting that; you are a Christian as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway, engagement with a position or an argument is just that, and too many people take that engagement as a personal criticism.
Let's engage on the text, not our intentions and how we put things.
What do you say?
Joshua
-
Ok so after this coronation, how many Gods are there?
Is one more powerful than the other?
I answered that very question in the other thread. Why do you insist on discussing it here?
-
Humor me
-
We agree on everything about Jesus, who He was, who He is, our faith in Him. Whether He had a beginning or not causes a huge separation?
We don't agree on everything, though. To suggest as much is to risk glossing over substantial theological disagreements.
The letter 'i' is a chasm.
Is Jesus eternal, or created? That's a chasm, too.
Is Jesus God by nature, or just by title (if there is such a thing as a god by title)? There's another chasm.
Who do we say that Jesus is? Who did Jesus say He was? God incarnate, or a deified man with a royal title? These are significantly different conceptions of Jesus Himself, how God operates, and the nature of divinity. Doctrinally, I see no bridging of the two. Here Hegel will forever remain dissatisified.
If you think the different working outs of these two views aren't significant then I'm not sure that you've thought them through to their end. Or maybe you have, and you prefer to fall back on faith, not doctrine? I think that's probably fine in theory, so long as we understand the vastly different conceptions we arrive at, at the end.
But as I said, that's not a value judgment. It's an acknowledgement of the vastly different working outs of each theological position.
Do you know that many Trinitarians believe that Jesus' personality was created when He came to the earth (just as one believes here)? That description is no different than what I have said, in my opinion... I believe the personality of Christ was created, but before He came to earth. And that is such a huge difference? It's a huge difference because the doctrine of the Trinity requires it, not the Bible.
It's a 'huge difference' because of the metaphysics and ontology of either view. There's nothing special about Trinitarianism specifically that necessitates a 'huge difference'. That same difference is present in your view as well.
Your view on the nature and person of Jesus is different.
I have already said the Trinity is not a salvational subject, and I'm not someone to judge anyone's salvation. I've already called you a brother/friend through our common belief in Christ. I'm not sure where you're getting that; you are a Christian as far as I'm concerned.
What is a 'false believer' in your view, if not someone who thinks a man by nature is God by nature? That is, by anyone's standard, a significant theological error. Not mere heterodoxy, either.
Let's engage on the text, not our intentions and how we put things.
What do you say?
Joshua
I say I've been doing that, but you've been taking it as a personal criticism.