They say the 3 main things in real estate are "location, location, and location". In Christian circles, we hear "context, context, context". I'll venture we ALL believe context to be important. I'll venture further though, that often where we begin to differ is how we interpret/understand context. I don't have all the answers to this, it's something I work on. I do have a thought and some questions though.
A thought is that when we take the words of Jesus to the Jews/House of Israel, prior to His death and resurrection; Paul's message primarily to the uncircumcision (the nations/Gentiles); Peter's message primarily to those of the circumcision (Jewish-Christians); then pull scriptures from the Revelation (and boy, how many understandings do we have about to whom that was primarily written? :mshock:); then, we often put all that together in a sack, shake it up, and start pulling out pieces of all that here and there to make our point(s). Some would say that's not taking scripture in context, or rightly dividing it. All important, all for our instruction, but still, a need to be "careful with the context and primary audiance".
On the other hand, I believe there are others who would stand more on the side of pretty much taking all scripture as absolutely being primarily directed at everybody, no distinctions made.
So, actually a couple of questions... so generally, 1) how important do you think context is, and 2) what's your understanding of what context of scripture even means?
Bonus observation...seems many even dip into the OT and attempt to apply (sometimes misapply) things from there onto New Covenant believers...ever know anyone who thought it was sin and absolutely would not eat out at a restaurant because they thought they were honoring the sabbath?! Maybe some of you haven't been as exposed to that as much as me, but growing up in the little country, Pentecostal churches in which I grew up, I'd say thought processes like that was very common...often times perhaps even never taking grace into account!
I believe when taken in context and rightly divided, all scripture reconciles. And in the final analysis, however we individually see that working, maybe if we all shared what we see as through that glass darkly, include a huge dose of "Jesus is Love and He's our Savior", we'd actually have more unity of spirit despite our differences of understanding. What do you think?
I have not attained this, but I'm thinkin'....God's blessing, James.
James, true context is important, and we can go down all kinds of roads with this context and that.
For me, the scriptures tell only 3 contexts when it comes right down to it.
Love, Love, Love
Scripture is multi leveled. the shadow being the physical plane RISING to another,
I kinda see it in its duality , both are true.
Fundamently scripture is LIFE, if we see the physical as death portraying LIFE , as is the shadow of the reality, it KNITS
sometime back Fire posted on Heb II, where Paul pulls in scripture from all over,,to illuminate a Point..Context has its value come Flow , but ALL scripture relates to HE who is Life and the Path to the Father.
See the shadow as the the FORM of the reality it speaks of ,For me theres Nothing in the OLD which is not documented in the NEW, as One bears witness to the other, so how can it contradict.
What contradicts surely is the lack of understanding.
There was a Time when the Literal was all there was...Tis a wonder I never sat in sackcloth and ashes
so to DIVIDE the Word is to to divide the shadow from the spiritual( ill get TT coming in on here :icon_flower:}
ya could say..DONT see singular, look with duality and then BLEND it, that is, from a Human perspective....from a spiritual one..you see single and then divide
Christ is the Context of Scripture, If your not seeing HIM as The denominator...for me.....its time to question
Amen Paul..LOVE, LOVE , LOVE which surely is LIFE :icon_flower:
I guess one bottom line for me is along the same lines as what Taf said. Jesus is the context.
Jesus blasted the Jews for searching the scriptures thinking that's where they'd find life, but the scriptures point to Him.
Context is obviously important for getting to the gist of what's being said, but there's a whole other (and more important) spiritual level to what's being said that you can entirely miss if you're looking anywhere but Jesus.
:cloud9: Everything, everywhere I look, points to Him or some attribute of Him. The Word is the level, the Spirit is the plumb line, and they both witness of Him. My :2c: Blessings....
Yes, yes, yes. It's all the breath of God, and Jesus is the living Word...the thread through it all, the Lamb slain before...That being given, then there's still the actual context within which folks attempt to make their doctrinal points...Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals...UR'ers that are all about love, UR'ers that are about condemnation and judgment...they/we get those beliefs from somewhere...
Maybe often they're/we're not seeing Jesus, but instead trying to choke our own beliefs into the other guy. And yes, after I had started the thread, I thought of the spiritual layers...another whole level...and the love piece...man, don't we often miss that one? To summarize and paraphrase the Apostle Paul, I may know it all and be a really effective fellow...but if I don't love, I'm just making noise. Boy, have I ever been noisy in my life.
:cloud9: I think it's like the Israelites in the wilderness. Some liked the oasis that grew up from the water from the Rock, not realizing that once the Rock left, the stream would dry up. The rebellious walk thru dry places.
The plan was that we change from glory to glory, streams of living water coming out of the Rock within, instead man camped out at their favorite watering hole, unaware that after awhile they were choking on the dust of where He WAS, not where He IS now. Blessings...
Cardinal, There's a whole generation that's been removed from me by that process.
I was going to say that context is useful if it helps you win an argument; but, I'm afraid that's too close to the truth so I won't say it.
I like making a definitive argument over the missing "s." What kind of context is that?! Paul makes very important the non-existence of one letter. "Seed" is not plural.
There's really no context to get all the stuff about Jesus out of the 110th POsalm.
The word is the sword of the spirit. You can claim to have received from God, but when you are truly anointed there is an obviousness to those born of the Spirit. Divine illumination! It seems that is the way the apostle's used Hebrew texts rather than the elevation given context by the consensus of those practising historio/critical methodology.
Through what secular historians called "the Dark Ages" the keys to Scripture were held by people wearing a wizards hat. Few, even those wearing the hats, ever read the actual texts. They even burned copies of it in the language of the people, as well as the people themselves who had such copies. After the Reformation the interpreters were dressed as professors. Doctor So-and-so shook his keys in your face. Now it's a rock star. A guy with little study in the actual texts gets access to millions via video cameras. He loudly chants his simplistic lyrics and is rewarded with the fleeces of entertained sheep.
I'm convinced so many variously titled religious cheerleaders reassure themselves of their own prevailing rightness of understanding and practise because they have so many millions of dollars from millions of people. Little do they know what is at hand.
God is preparing an "underground" church, even in their midst. A people of moral integrity and spiritual power, who have been taught of the living God in their midst. They will rise speedily up, like the dew appearing. Their doctine will correct lies that have held men in bondage for centuries. Their practises will be normal, simple and so practical that nations will be adjusted thereby.
What kind of word? "IT'S ALIVE!".
Quote from: reFORMer on March 06, 2009, 09:25:17 AM
God is preparing an "underground" church, even in their midst. A people of moral integrity and spiritual power, who have been taught of the living God in their midst. They will rise speedily up, like the dew appearing. Their doctrine will correct lies that have held men in bondage for centuries. Their practices will be normal, simple and so practical that nations will be adjusted thereby.
What kind of word? "IT'S ALIVE!".
:cloud9: Amen, He is. I've only had a taste of what's coming, but it was profound enough to rock my world. Blessings....
This is a great subject . .and an important one. I do have a fairly strong opinion when it comes to context and Jab, as you eluded to in your first post . . .how often do we see people enforcing things that really aren't the true message that their belief embraces. All the rules . . .you can't have long hair, women you can't wear makeup and you have to be quiet in church . . .you could go on all day with examples where we experience someone enforcing the wrong message.
For me, it lies in what dimension you are coming from. If you are a fundamentalist . .then context is everything . . .unfortunately, it's not everything to the fundamentalist . . .I used to be one. "If the Bible doesn't list it, then I won't acknowledge it either . ." Or, perhaps a little more popular . . "If it's not in the Bible (make sure you capitalize "Bible") then it's not of God . . ." Those who live in the letter of what's written can easily pull stuff out of context and mislead their listeners . . just my opinion.
If you're looking at it corporately . .then there is some relaxation in the context, all though it is still the intent of the one sharing to maintain the context. For me, corporately means you see yourself as part of the bigger picture . .you are the "bride of Christ". You are the "sons of God". We all are the "body of Christ". You are a small piece of a bigger picture.
The third way is seeing it Spiritually, and for me, this is where Taffy's remarks come in. Hebrews is very much a message taking natural events, people and things, and applying them with a spiritual picture. The highpriest of the tabernacle of Moses . . .picture of Christ . . .Melchezedek . . .another picture of Christ . . . a mountain that can't be touched . . .mt. Siani . . .but we have come to Mt. Zion . . .on and on . . . Even Peter's mentioning of "this is that". Well, "that" was a spiritual picture that was proclaimed to manifest naturally . . .and when the upper room experience transpired . . .Peter saw that "this" was "that" which the prophet Joel spoke of. It didn't have context until it actually happened.
Bottom line, for me, the importance of context varies between which dimension you are applying it to.
"Context is that which surrounds; giving meaning to something else as in light."
An interpretation of the thing, past, present, and future.
peacemaker
Isa 28:10 For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little:
Quote from: chuckt on March 06, 2009, 06:23:01 PM
Isa 28:10 For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little:
Time out . . . . if ya'll aren't crazy about soap boxes, ya may just want to skip this post . .. cuz I'd like to take a shot at shedding a different light on this . . .preachers use this all the time . .and interestingly enough . ..it's a perfect example of how they take this passage out of context. The verse is a popular one, but the context is not.
Read the verses leading up to and beyond this one and you'll find this is not an instruction of how God choose to communicate . . .but it's what he's forced to do due to the immaturity of those he's trying to talk to. He "wants" to reveal his nature, but because of their blindness . . .he has to instead, lead them in baby steps . . a line here, a line there . . .here a little, there a little . . .but that's not his actual desire.
That's not what Christ uses as his cornerstone with which he built his house upon. What he uses is what Peter experienced . .and it wasn't here a little there a little . . .it was a flood of realization of who Christ is . .that came directly from the Father to man.
Okay . . .I'm hopping of the box now . . .carry on!! :soap:
Quote from: Nathan on March 06, 2009, 06:36:43 PM
Quote from: chuckt on March 06, 2009, 06:23:01 PM
Isa 28:10 For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little:
Time out . . . . if ya'll aren't crazy about soap boxes, ya may just want to skip this post . .. cuz I'd like to take a shot at shedding a different light on this . . .preachers use this all the time . .and interestingly enough . ..it's a perfect example of how they take this passage out of context. The verse is a popular one, but the context is not.
Read the verses leading up to and beyond this one and you'll find this is not an instruction of how God choose to communicate . . .but it's what he's forced to do due to the immaturity of those he's trying to talk to. He "wants" to reveal his nature, but because of their blindness . . .he has to instead, lead them in baby steps . . a line here, a line there . . .here a little, there a little . . .but that's not his actual desire.
That's not what Christ uses as his cornerstone with which he built his house upon. What he uses is what Peter experienced . .and it wasn't here a little there a little . . .it was a flood of realization of who Christ is . .that came directly from the Father to man.
Okay . . .I'm hopping of the box now . . .carry on!! :soap:
woohooo, i knew someone would get a kick out of that text. :bgdance:
yeah, it seems to me in those passages we see two types.
well im having a discussion with someone on another forum, and he definatly is not weened from milk.
the two types i see are those that get REST from the Christ and his words or those that fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
God bless
chuckt
AMEN TO THAT BRO . . . ya set me up!! :laughing7:
Jhn 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
Nome None
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
nom-ay' Noun Feminine
Definition
pasturage, fodder, food fig. he shall not want the needful supplies for the true life growth, increase :boogie: :boydance:
for sure though its always the ""other"" guy who need to check the context :laughhand: :rolllol:
peas
chuckt
Notice also in your passage that it's not just as we are "in" but as we go "out" we still find that pasture . . .I think . .for me . . the going in him, is what enables him to enter into us . .so that when we go out, we still find that pasture because when we were in . .we took him in . .so when we go out . .he's still within.
Startin to sound like WW.
Quote from: Nathan on March 06, 2009, 07:13:33 PM
Notice also in your passage that it's not just as we are "in" but as we go "out" we still find that pasture . . .I think . .for me . . the going in him, is what enables him to enter into us . .so that when we go out, we still find that pasture because when we were in . .we took him in . .so when we go out . .he's still within.
Startin to sound like WW.
yes excellent and i did notice that, the ""going in and out"" :Yesss:
our sisters chrissie and fire i beleive had some good words on this topic.
ok good stuff.
God blesss and safe weekend.
chuckt
Quote from: chuckt on March 06, 2009, 07:15:58 PM
Quote from: Nathan on March 06, 2009, 07:13:33 PM
Notice also in your passage that it's not just as we are "in" but as we go "out" we still find that pasture . . .I think . .for me . . the going in him, is what enables him to enter into us . .so that when we go out, we still find that pasture because when we were in . .we took him in . .so when we go out . .he's still within.
Startin to sound like WW.
yes excellent and i did notice that, the ""going in and out"" :Yesss:
our sisters chrissie and fire i beleive had some good words on this topic.
ok good stuff.
God blesss and safe weekend.
chuckt
Yeah, I wish they'd come back . .I was just gettin to know them.
Good words, all.
And that was just an awesome post, reformer!
This discussion helping me with what's been gauling me to no end:
Pesronal note:
I'm having trouble coming to terms with the mishmash of conflicting interpretations of teachers/theologians, who are all supposed to be getting their insights from the Holy Spirit – but are all getting mixed messages. The authors of the Bible were supposed to be inspired by The Holy Spirit, that the Bible was written by God through them. So, way aren't teachers/theologians receiving the same infallible guidance from the Holy Spirit that the authors of the Bible were supposed to have received? And why is it that the Bible is so ambiguous; vague, unclear, uncertain, indefinite, confusing, indistinct, hazy - esoteric: obscure, mysterious, abstruse, impenetrable, cryptic, arcane in so many places? Such a riddle: puzzle, conundrum, mystery, enigma, brainteaser, challenge?
Whereas most teachers/theologians are: Dogmatic, rigid, inflexible, unbending, strict, assertive, fixed, doctrinaire... Narrow. The Narrow Path. I'm so confused.
IMO the vagueness of the Bible for a large part come from:
- It's (almost) impossible to 100% corectly translate between languages.
- To fully understand the 'feeling' of a text you have to know the culture during the time it's written.
- Translators have given their of twist to the texts.
- etc etc
Why not all visions are the same:
- Many are just lies.
- Things get added. For example when the HS says "sinners get punished" it just means that. But people starts adding to that message and quickly it turns into "sinners get punished in an eternal fire"
The readers:
- Reading things in context is good. Until.... you start inventing your own context.
- Read with an open mind. That doesn't include force fitting what you read into the last sermon you heard.
Brian and WW. Good stuff! Brian I am with ya Brother.
cp
Really like your points, WW :thumbsup:
Dear Brian. I believe a lot of it is because we often refuse to take things in context. I would refer you to things Tony has presented on this, as I agree very much with his view of correctly cutting scripture. As I understand, Peter's ministry was PRIMARILY to the Christian Jews, so many things he said pertained to their issues and standing with God. Paul was PRIMARILY to us, the nations, the gentiles graciously grafted in, forgiven and accepted by the blood of Jesus...apart from the Law, except that Jesus fulfills it in our heart as we pursue Him and He is in us. Jesus' words are obviously for us as well, BUT not every word primarily directed at us at the time...He often was talking to specific groups of people, preparing to usher in our age of grace. In fact, His own words, "I came not except for the lost sheep of the House of Israel". I don't purport to know exactly what He meant by that. But shouldn't those types of things be taken into cosideration as context before we start espousing particular doctrines as if we know it all and God has chosen us to straighten out the world with our knowledge? I believe MOST of Christendom mixes all that together and tries to somehow come out with a clear doctrine and statements of faith?!! And IMO, it's most often done, not by those who are themselves seeking with a pure heart, but particularly by those who present things as fact rather than their opinion or understanding, or what they believe God has revealed to them...those that presume to "teach" rather than discuss and search together.
An example; I was just thinking this morning how Peter said "confess your sins" (which I do)...however, Paul said "it is no longer I that sin, but sin that dwells in me"...I admit, I don't fully understand it nor have it reconciled, but do you see the difference I'm talking about? Peter talked primarily to those of the circumcision, Paul primarily to the uncircumcision. I think there is a lot in scripture difficult to understand...but IMO, unless someone is willing to take these types of contexts into consideration before they start trying to teach others how to live, then they're often going to just be making a confusing mess of things...30,000 denominations, anyone :laughing7:? I just think we have to very careful, take those things into consideration...because if not, we can unwittingly lay a yoke of bondage on those that have been freed by the blood of Jesus.
So, my brother, know that you are accepted, loved, and these things are said; He is the author AND finisher of our salvation; For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus Phi 1:6.
God's blessing, James.
Quote from: WhiteWings on March 09, 2009, 08:25:11 PM
IMO the vagueness of the Bible for a large part come from:
- It's (almost) impossible to 100% corectly translate between languages.
- To fully understand the 'feeling' of a text you have to know the culture during the time it's written.
- Translators have given their of twist to the texts.
- etc etc
Why not all visions are the same:
- Many are just lies.
- Things get added. For example when the HS says "sinners get punished" it just means that. But people starts adding to that message and quickly it turns into "sinners get punished in an eternal fire"
The readers:
- Reading things in context is good. Until.... you start inventing your own context.
- Read with an open mind. That doesn't include force fitting what you read into the last sermon you heard.
But here's the thing; isn't the Holy Spirit supposed to cut through all that? I mean even with armchair Bible scholars, like a lot of us , with no agenda, who get mixed messages. It makes me worry about what I can rely on. Especially myself. What I think the HS is telling me, what I think the Bible is telling me...
That's why we must live in "faith" and not in knowledge, works, or reasoning. In faith, grace covers the things you don't understand until your maturity reaches each deeper level of understanding . . .you become "new every morning". The confusion comes when our mind reaches the end of it's understanding and can't see any further . . . your mind doesn't live on faith . . . it lives on sight . .and when it can't see what's ahead . . . it manifests doubt. None of these key words here are constructive. Confusion, mind, no faith, doubt . . . the hardest thing for beleivers to do sometimes is to let go of what got them where they are . . . even though there is a river of death in front of you, the promise land is on the other side . .you are a priest . . .Christ is on your shoulders . .step out in faith . . . even though your mind isn't seeing the fulness of undersanding . . .keep walking toward the "sound" of the voice . . .the sight will come when you reach the source of the sound.
hi brian,
No offense, but it is this danger and fear of "what if" or "better safe than sorry" that religion seems to inject into us as we hear all the various teachings about how you better get it right.
There are universalists that are legalists too, that point the finger saying everyone better straighten up or else.
If that mentality is so healthy, why isn't it helping you?
Quote from: Brian on March 09, 2009, 09:33:58 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on March 09, 2009, 08:25:11 PM
IMO the vagueness of the Bible for a large part come from:
- It's (almost) impossible to 100% corectly translate between languages.
- To fully understand the 'feeling' of a text you have to know the culture during the time it's written.
- Translators have given their of twist to the texts.
- etc etc
Why not all visions are the same:
- Many are just lies.
- Things get added. For example when the HS says "sinners get punished" it just means that. But people starts adding to that message and quickly it turns into "sinners get punished in an eternal fire"
The readers:
- Reading things in context is good. Until.... you start inventing your own context.
- Read with an open mind. That doesn't include force fitting what you read into the last sermon you heard.
But here's the thing; isn't the Holy Spirit supposed to cut through all that? I mean even with armchair Bible scholars, like a lot of us , with no agenda, who get mixed messages. It makes me worry about what I can rely on. Especially myself. What I think the HS is telling me, what I think the Bible is telling me...
I have zero HS experience so I have no idea how (forceful) that feels.
Not that it's of any help to you, or anyone else, but perhaps God wants things a bit vague and hidden.
I guess the HS can instantly pump your mind full with all the knowledge Jesus had/has.
Likely that's just not part of Gods plan?
Quotewhat I think the Bible is telling me
But are you listening? Is your Bible free of errors? (see my views on that in my earlier post)
QuoteWhat I think the HS is telling me
Again do you listen and accept like a little child?
Or do you verify against a Bible/teachings that possible has errors?
Well, I guess it's all in a stir!
Because I believe ALL of Scripture is relevant to ALL us, relevant to ALL of life ALL the time, I cut across what jabcat and Paul Hazelwood just said.
jabcat,
I really find racial dispensationalism to be one of the greatest robbers of the people who believe in Jesus. Some things are to the racially gentile, the "goyim" church and others are to the racially jewish church, indeed?!!! Where is there a promise of blessing a bloodline or a race of people apart from keeping God's word? The closest to it I can find is the Levites who were set apart, but since others could marry into their tribe it is hardly racial. That's gone now anyway.
Paul,
I'm not sure the extent of what you mean "legalists," if it's only "everybody better straighten up of else," or, "how you better get it right," as you have said. I get accused of being a legalist because I still believe: "the wages of sin is death." Scripture is a reliable witness to what sin and righteousness are. According to Paul there are certain unjust natures that if we take them up we cannot enjoy the realm or reign of God (that also would put us at great risk.) Yet he goes on to say "...some of you were these, but you are bathed off, but you are hallowed, but you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the spirit of our God." (1 Cor 6:11, CLV)
Life is God's gift. Still, it can be cut short is you do certain things wrong. Gravity is only described by "The Law of Gravity." It doesn't work because somebody posted "The Law of Gravity" in newspapers and laundromats around the country. The same with sin.
Mat 4:5-6 (CLV)...
5 Then the Adversary is taking Him along into the holy city, and stands Him on the wing of the sanctuary.
6 And he is saying to Him. "If you are God's Son, cast yourself down, for it is written that 'His messengers shall be directed concerning Thee' and 'On their hands shall they be lifting Thee, Lest at some time Thou shouldst be dashing Thy foot against a stone.'"
7 Jesus averred to him, "Again it is written, 'You shall not be putting on trial the Lord your God.'"
Is it possible that if Jesus had in this case obeyed the Scripture he would've died?
Nathan,
This is where I could even disagree with you, because here we have someone "led of the spirit," with Scripture corroboration as well indicating he should jump.
Brian and everybody,
The best answer to this that I know at this time is God is greater than our knowledge and experience; but, it takes grace, which is His repeated dealings with us to mature us to where we know Him. It does get sorted out after enough time in God's school. We can grow to where we believe with Job, "Though He slay me, yet shall I praise Him." Having been through repeated failures after repeated disobediences after repeated wrongs I found God present to love me. I went through long periods when I had no conscious experience of Him; but, learned He never left me. But, because of His discipline, and yes, His fear,I also learned to stop doing what "shaded" me from His light. (That's the short version.)
1 Pet 5:10-11 (CLV)...
10 Now the God of all grace, Who calls you into His eonian glory in Christ, while briefly suffering, He will be adjusting, establishing, firming, founding you.
11 To Him be glory and might for the eons of the eons. Amen!
Quote from: reFORMer on March 09, 2009, 11:34:28 PM
Well, I guess it's all in a stir!
Because I believe ALL of Scripture is relevant to ALL us, relevant to ALL of life ALL the time, I
What does it do for you ref? How is it relevant to you? I ask with great curiosity and seriousness.
cp
Quote from: reFORMer on March 09, 2009, 11:34:28 PM
I get accused of being a legalist because I still believe: "the wages of sin is death." Scripture is a reliable witness to what sin and righteousness are. According to Paul there are certain unjust natures that if we take them up we cannot enjoy the realm or reign of God (that also would put us at great risk.)
Give an example of how you would address an individual and certain unjust natures in the light of spirituality.
Quote from: reFORMer on March 09, 2009, 11:34:28 PM
Well, I guess it's all in a stir!
Because I believe ALL of Scripture is relevant to ALL us, relevant to ALL of life ALL the time, I cut across what jabcat and Paul Hazelwood just said.
jabcat,
I really find racial dispensationalism to be one of the greatest robbers of the people who believe in Jesus. Some things are to the racially gentile, the "goyim" church and others are to the racially jewish church, indeed?!!! Where is there a promise of blessing a bloodline or a race of people apart from keeping God's word? The closest to it I can find is the Levites who were set apart, but since others could marry into their tribe it is hardly racial. That's gone now anyway.
11 To Him be glory and might for the eons of the eons. Amen!
I hope I'm teachable of the Master on this, Bro James...I CERTAINLY can't explain it all, and
I don't want to indicate that ANY of scripture is not relevant. God reminded me recently we live by EVERY Word that proceeds out of His mouth. It's
all for our growing, learning, edification. But when speaking of context, let me give you what may seem a simple-minded example. When Jesus told the 12 they would sit on thrones judging, I understand that to be what He said...the 12...not that I can somehow make that mean me...there are other Words that
do primarily address that topic (Apostle Paul?), but perhaps not
those specific words to
those specific 12 individuals. That's what I'm trying to say. It surely has relevance, worth, we need to pay attention to it...but IMO, Jesus was telling the 12 what He intended for them to know at that time.
Without a debate (and perhaps I can learn from your understanding), do you see what I'm trying to say, and what are your thoughts as related to that?
God's blessing, James.
Quote from: jabcat on March 10, 2009, 12:20:23 AM
Quote from: reFORMer on March 09, 2009, 11:34:28 PM
Well, I guess it's all in a stir!
Because I believe ALL of Scripture is relevant to ALL us, relevant to ALL of life ALL the time, I cut across what jabcat and Paul Hazelwood just said.
jabcat,
I really find racial dispensationalism to be one of the greatest robbers of the people who believe in Jesus. Some things are to the racially gentile, the "goyim" church and others are to the racially jewish church, indeed?!!! Where is there a promise of blessing a bloodline or a race of people apart from keeping God's word? The closest to it I can find is the Levites who were set apart, but since others could marry into their tribe it is hardly racial. That's gone now anyway.
11 To Him be glory and might for the eons of the eons. Amen!
I hope I'm teachable of the Master on this, Bro James...I CERTAINLY can't explain it all, and I don't want to indicate that ANY of scripture is not relevant. God reminded me recently we live by EVERY Word that proceeds out of His mouth. It's all for our growing, learning, edification. But when speaking of context, let me give you what may seem a simple-minded example. When Jesus told the 12 they would sit on thrones judging, I understand that to be what He said...the 12...not that I can somehow make that mean me...there are other Words that do primarily address that topic (Apostle Paul?), but perhaps not those specific words to those specific 12 individuals. That's what I'm trying to say. It surely has relevance, worth, we need to pay attention to it...but IMO, Jesus was telling the 12 what He intended for them to know at that time.
Without a debate (and perhaps I can learn from your understanding), do you see what I'm trying to say, and what are your thoughts as related to that?
God's blessing, James.
I have a full understanding on all of this down cold. Just send me $39.99 for a series of CD's you won't be able to understand. Make checks payable to CASH.
:LH:. Hey man, I got an idea...let's start a denomination...you be the preacher and i'll lead the singin'...oh never mind, all the best names are already taken :eyebrow:
:cloud9: Both of you are a late nite riot..... :laughing7:
Well, you fit in just fine yourself, thanks.
I was just thinking earlier tonight about something Groucho Marx said..."I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a member".
Dr.Theophilos' Traveling Salvation Band and Gospel Light Extravaganza
That name has not been taken. We'll need a tent and a truck and light show paraphenalia. Surely we already have some tamborines! You can figure out the rest.
(If it wasn't so late for me I'd write more stuff...please forgive me. I'm trying to defeat insomnia.)
:cloud9: Now you're talkin'.......I have a tambourine :winkgrin:
well Chuckt plays drums and percussion , Willie H, guitar and sings some too, Byron has a recording outlet ,WW could do a Fine Job on advertising and promotion , ill just tag along be a Roadie.. :thumbsup:
(http://soleilimg1.free.fr/gifs/musique/musiciens/music027.gif)
:icon_flower:
Quote from: Taffy on March 10, 2009, 02:59:18 PM
well Chuckt plays drums and percussion , Willie H, guitar and sings some too, Byron has a recording outlet ,WW could do a Fine Job on advertising and promotion , ill just tag along be a Roadie.. :thumbsup:
(http://soleilimg1.free.fr/gifs/musique/musiciens/music027.gif)
:icon_flower:
jammin for Jesus :Egyptdance2: :egyptdance:
Quote from: Taffy on March 10, 2009, 02:59:18 PM
well Chuckt plays drums and percussion , Willie H, guitar and sings some too, Byron has a recording outlet ,WW could do a Fine Job on advertising and promotion , ill just tag along be a Roadie.. :thumbsup:
I think you will take those words back when you see the album/track names of the CDs in my cupboard... :rocker
what is that handsign you are making, ww? :mshock:
I'm fan of the Dallas Longhorns like Bush :laughing7:
Studying this myself guys, so if you have big problems here, don't kill the messenger :icon_jokercolor:. I thought this was relevant information to consider...I personally struggle with different "gospels", thinking about it, will try to see what the author really means by that...
--------------------------
Grace Evangel Fellowship "Recognizing Christ as the Ultimate Saviour of All!"
http://prairiekari.com/GraceEvangel/zz%20Files03d%20-%20Newsletters/Evangel%20-%20The%20Gospel%20(10-28-05).pdf
A huge error within modern Christianity is the teaching that the Bible speaks only of one Gospel. This
teaching alleges that wherever the word "Gospel" is found in Scripture it refers to the same identical
message concerning salvation.
Paul wrote to Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:13
Have a pattern of sound words, which you hear from me, in faith and love
which are in Christ Jesus. As we study God's Word, and as we share our understandings of God's Word with others, it is crucial that we express exactly and precisely what God has said ... that we use sound words. If we vary from what God has said, we are in danger of teaching false things about God.
INCONSISTENT TRANSLATIONS
The problem is that our modern English translations are grossly inconsistent, and incorporate Bible
interpretation into the translation. They are really not translations of God's Word at all, but
interpretations based on the theological understandings of those creating the translations.
So not only do we have great inconsistency in translating the word "evangel" ... but the translators have
determined for us exactly what the "Gospel" with a capital "G" is.
But were the translators correct?
DIFFERENT GOSPELS
Before we move forward, let us consider a few observations concerning the various "gospels" found in
Scripture:
• The various gospels are not always brought by the same person
• The various gospels are not always directed to the same person or persons
• The various gospels do not always contain the same message, or good news
• The various gospels are not always concerning salvation
THE GOSPEL (#1) TO ABRAHAM
THE GOSPEL (#2) TO ZECHARIAH
THE GOSPEL (#3) TO THE SHEPHERDS
THE GOSPEL (#4) THAT TIMOTHY BROUGHT TO PAUL
As we can see from these passages, "gospel" is simply good news. The good news is not always the same
... and it does not always have anything to do with our salvation. The word "gospel" always requires
definition from its context, for us to know what the "gospel" in each instance refers to.
THE GOSPEL (#5) OF THE CIRCUMCISION
Consider the question posed to Jesus just before his ascension into heaven (Acts 1:6)
Those, indeed, then who are coming together, asked Him, saying, "Lord, art Thou
at this time restoring the kingdom to Israel?" Yet He said to them, "Not yours is
it to know times or eras which the Father placed in His own jurisdiction."
Christ could not reveal when the kingdom would be restored to Israel.
Jesus and His disciples proclaimed the same message concerning the kingdom as did the Old
Testament prophets
• Even after the crucifixion and resurrection, the Twelve continued to go only to the sheep of Israel
• Peter's proclamation continued to call for repentance and awaited the restoration of the kingdom
Those, indeed, then who are coming together, asked Him, saying, "Lord, art Thou
at this time restoring the kingdom to Israel?" Yet He said to them, "Not yours is
it to know times or eras which the Father placed in His own jurisdiction."
Jesus and His disciples proclaimed the same message concerning the kingdom as did the Old
Testament prophets
• Even after the crucifixion and resurrection, the Twelve continued to go only to the sheep of Israel
• Peter's proclamation continued to call for repentance and awaited the restoration of the kingdom
Even "the church" ("ecclesia" in the Greek ... literally "called-out-ones") in the early part of Acts was
entirely a Jewish body. The many references to the gospel going only to the sheep of Israel throughout the
book of Acts are often overlooked by Bible students, but clearly the gospel during that time was directed
exclusively to the Jews, and "the church" at that time was exclusively Jewish. Pentecost (in Acts 2),
thought by most to be the birth of our Church, was a gathering of Israelites only. Peter and the Twelve
clearly went only to the sheep of Israel.
Nowhere in the "gospel of the Circumcision" proclaimed by Peter do we see the equality of Gentiles with
the sons of Israel. Nowhere do we see a promise of "heaven" ... but only a restoration of the kingdom
upon this earth.
THE GOSPEL (#6) OF THE UNCIRCUMCISION
Turning again to Galatians 2:7, Paul writes:
I have been entrusted with the evangel of the Uncircumcision, according
as Peter of the Circumcision...
We recall Paul's conversion and his commission from the Lord in Acts 9:15
He is a choice instrument of Mine, to bear My name before both the nations
and kings, besides the sons of Israel.
None of the Twelve were chosen or commissioned to go to the other nations, but only to the sons of
Israel. Paul is commissioned to do both. The book of Acts records that everywhere Paul went, he would
first go to the synagogues and proclaim Christ to the Jews. We remember that a part of his commission
was to go to the "sons of Israel."
But when he was rejected by the sons of Israel, he would go to the Gentiles. Peter and the Twelve did not
do so. And finally, in Acts 28 when Paul calls together the "foremost of the Jews" (v 17) he seeks to
"persuade them concerning Jesus" (v 23). When many are not persuaded, Paul announces:
Let it be known to you, then, that to the nations was dispatched this salvation
of God, and they will hear. (v 28)
But is the gospel to the nations the same as the gospel to Israel?
How could the nations await the restoration of the kingdom, since it was not their kingdom to begin with?
How could the nations suddenly inherit all of the same promises made to Israel? Consider what Paul says
in Romans 11:25
Callousness, in part, on Israel has come, until the complement of the nations
may be entering. And thus all Israel shall be saved...
If God had cast off Israel and given her promises to the Gentiles, how could Israel one day be saved? We
read in Romans 11 that Israel had not been calloused permanently ... but only UNTIL the complement of
the nations may be entering.
Consider Galatians 1:11
For I am making known to you, brethren, as to the evangel which is being brought
by me, that it is not in accord with man. For neither did I accept it from a man, nor
was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
If Paul's gospel was the same as Peter's, why did Paul not simply receive this gospel from Peter and the
others who had walked with Jesus during his earthly ministry? Paul is very clear that this was not the
case.
And why does Paul refer to his message as "MY gospel?" (Romans 2:16; 16:25; 2 Timothy 2:8). If there
is only one Gospel, why does Paul use the terminology "MY gospel?"
And if Paul's gospel was the same as Peter's, why was there so much controversy surrounding his
proclamation?
Even late in his ministry when he went to Jerusalem, we read in Acts 21:20
... how many tens of thousands there are among the Jews who have believed, and
all are inherently zealous for the law...
Those that opposed Paul were not unbelieving Jews ... but all are inherently zealous for the law...
Those that opposed Paul were not unbelieving Jews ... but "Jews who believed." If Paul's gospel was the
same as Peter's, why would this opposition occur?
And consider some of the differences between what Paul proclaimed and what Peter and the others
proclaimed.
Peter Paul
Bride of Christ Body of Christ
Priestly nation No barrier between Jew or Greek
Born again New creation
Pardon (found guilty but sentence suspended) Justification (found not guilty) God not reckoning offenses to man
Repent..so that restoration can come and Awaiting Christ to return to snatch us away
reign in kingdom on earth into the heavens
PROCLAIMING THE CORRECT GOSPEL
We read in 2 Corinthians 5:20
For Christ, then, are we ambassadors, as of God entreating through us. We
are beseeching for Christ's sake, "Be conciliated to God!"
If we are to be Christ's ambassadors, we must be sure that the gospel we proclaim is the correct gospel. If
this is not the case, how can God be entreating through us.
By failing to recognize that the Bible speaks of many different "gospels" ... and specifically by failing to
distinguish between the "gospel of the Circumcision" and the "gospel of the Uncircumcision" ... we cause
confusion and we proclaim things that are not true.
• Israel awaited her King to return, restoring the kingdom unto Israel
• We await Christ to come and snatch us away into the heavens
• The gospel of the Circumcision pertained to the nation of Israel
• The gospel of the Uncircumcision pertains to those of all nations, without distinction
We cannot mix the two gospels without confusing the message God wants us to proclaim in this present
age!
If we fail to distinguish those things in God's Word that are different, and if we mix together the various
gospels we find throughout Scripture (some of which are not spoken to us or intended for us), we are
actually creating a "different gospel" ... a gospel of our own creation ... thereby distorting the real gospel
God has entrusted to His Church.
Endeavor to present yourself to God qualified, an unashamed worker, correctly
cutting the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)
--------------------
There is a related, but somewhat varying POV here: http://www.iswasandwillbe.com/understandingbible.php
I encourage us each to pray for God's understanding to us, that the spiritual truths of His Word will be revealed...
God's blessing, James.
Quote from: jabcat on March 12, 2009, 01:42:34 AM
Peter Paul
Bride of Christ Body of Christ
Priestly nation No barrier between Jew or Greek
Born again New creation
Pardon (found guilty but sentence suspended) Justification (found not guilty) God not reckoning offenses to man
Repent..so that restoration can come and Awaiting Christ to return to snatch us away
reign in kingdom on earth into the heavens
:cloud9: Jabcat, I think what's missing here is a spiritual understanding of what the writer is pointing out as contradictions. Numbering them 1 thru 5......
1) The body is the Spirit of Christ in each one that makes up the whole of Christ. The bride that He is "returning" for (and returns and returns and returns) is the soul of man. This is why there are males after the flesh that are still part of the "bride" He's returning for.
2) The priestly nation is in the SPIRIT, so the second column only reinforces that, so that ALL now can enter in to being a priest of God.
3) It should read born from above, and again the second column entry only reinforces that, because the first creature was from the earth, earthy, the second is the Lord from heaven whose likeness we do and will continue to take on.
4) Pardon; this is a work of the outer court realm, which the law/letter is in and we come to the knowledge of our offenses here when we receive Jesus in this realm.
Justification is a work of the inner court realm, as this is the realm of receiving the HG, which at it's essence means the "sacrifice" was accepted as fire came down from heaven to consume the offering.
Romans 8:30 - Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called (outer court): and whom he called, them he also justified (inner court): and whom he justified, them he also glorified (Holy of Holies).
The Lord gave me something on how that operates in the kingdom. When the ram was sacrificed on the day of atonement, God told the priests to separate the HEAD from the animal first (He was separated from His body first). They were to cut the animal in it's joints, making sure to not break a bone (not a bone of His was broken).
Then they were to take the skin off the animal and put the HEAD of the animal on the fire first, and then they were to place the pieces on the grate next, making sure to leave gaps so that none of the pieces were touching, so that the fire could come up between the pieces of the body.
The baptism of the HG IS that fire that comes between the pieces of the body of Adam, ie. that which every joint supplieth has been met. So every time someone is born from above and baptized in the HG, another piece of "Adam" (who is also a many membered body) just got placed on the altar. God tends to "overlap" some of His works, as some begin but are not yet finished in the individual, as this was a picture of Pentecost but also of the day of atonement.
5) He does catch us up into the heavenly realm, but it's not our body that gets caught up, but our fully redeemed souls. The kingdom is restored IN MAN, which is where it was lost from in the first place. Adam was given to rule and have dominion and when he gave up that dominion within, it manifested without. We don't rule on earth first, we rule IN OUR EARTH first. The Lord's prayer says, "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, IN EARTH, as it is in heaven."
As for the gospel, the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Without that, there is no other gospel, there is no propitiation for sins. Blessings....
Very good stuff, Card. Excellent!
Do you think it's possible that the writer's points (many of them, at least) have validity, but that there are then other, deeper layers, which you're pointing out? Further, that often times we do get caught up in the "letter", the "surface doctrines", actually mixing the evangels on a "primary" level, and pretty much get stuck on arguing at that level...thus the divisions, denominations, even the opposing POV's on TM (grace, works, Law :swordfight:) ...but that there are many spiritual truths that lie deeper within, underneath the surface where we often dwell?
What do you (or anyone) think about some of those possibilites? I think it could be at least partly so...
:cloud9: Yes I do..... :thumbsup:
Excellent, I feel some peace about that...I see that's really where your post went...not contradicting the author's presentation of his view of the "facts", but moving into another realm of it...I personally do get stuck at the surface level most of the time...I'll watch and see what some others get out of this...God's blessing, James.
Galatians 1:6-12 (CLV) . . .
6 I am marveling that thus, swiftly, you are transferred from that which calls you in the grace of Christ, to a different evangel,
7 which is not another, except it be that some who are disturbing you want also to distort the evangel of Christ.
8 But if ever we also, or a messenger out of heaven, should be bringing an evangel to you beside that which we bring to you, let him be anathema!
9 As we have declared before and at present I am saying again, if anyone is bringing you an evangel beside that which you accepted, let him be anathema!
10 For, at present, am I persuading men or God? Or am I seeking to please men? If I still pleased men, I were not a slave of Christ.
11 For I am making known to you, brethren, as to the evangel which is being brought by me, that it is not in accord with man.
12 For neither did I accept it from a man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
But I should believe there are many gospels, or evangels?
1 Corinthians 15:1-5 (CLV) . . .
1 Now I am making known to you, brethren, the evangel which I bring to you, which also you accepted, in which also you stand,
2 through which also you are saved, if you are retaining what I said in bringing the evangel to you, outside and except you believe feignedly.
3 For I give over to you among the first what also I accepted, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures,
4 and that He was entombed, and that He has been roused the third day according to the scriptures,
5 and that He was seen . . .
This would've been preached by Christ while He was dead to those who were dead.
Also, Scripture, "...brings before an evangel to Abraham" (CLV), also translated as, "...preached before the gospel unto Abraham" (AV), is explained in context where that phrase appears in Galatians 3:8:
Galatians 3:8 (AV) . . .
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Galatians 3:2-14 (CLV) . . .
2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you get the spirit by works of law or by hearing of faith?
3 So foolish are you? Undertaking in spirit, are you now being completed in flesh?
4 So much did you suffer feignedly? Since, surely, it also is feignedly!
5 He, then, who is supplying you with the spirit, and operating works of power among you-did you get the spirit by works of law or by the hearing of faith,
6 according as Abraham believes God, and it is reckoned to him for righteousness?
7 Know, consequently, that those of faith, these are sons of Abraham.
8 Now the scripture, perceiving before that God is justifying the nations by faith, brings before an evangel to Abraham, that In you shall all the nations be blessed.
9 So that those of faith are being blessed together with believing Abraham.
10 For whoever are of works of law are under a curse, for it is written that, Accursed is everyone who is not remaining in all things written in the scroll of the law to do them.
11 Now that in law no one is being justified with God is evident, for the just one by faith shall be living.
12 Now the law is not of faith, but who does them "shall be living in them."
13 Christ reclaims us from the curse of the law, becoming a curse for our sakes, for it is written, Accursed is everyone hanging on a pole,
14 that the blessing of Abraham may be coming to the nations in Christ Jesus, that we may be obtaining the promise of the spirit through faith.
"The gospel of Christ" and "the gospel of God" are not different gospels. There's no reason to believe the "gospel to the circumcision" is a different gospel than what is to be preached as "gospel to the uncircumcision," or, nations.
I thought about those scriptures too in Galatians 1. . .
I'm going to look at some different translations...I'm wondering if these scriptures are saying (and maybe they are) that there absolutely is no other evangel, or rather that those to whom Paul was speaking were not to accept another/different evangel...going from grace to the Law, for instance? However it all fits together, I believe Jesus, the cross, the resurrection, has to end up being the defining point.
---------------
Later, modifying my post....I looked up the Concordant Commentary on the passage, which is where it's taken from (CLV)...has this to say...
"The two evangels were different in kind and could not be classed together. They had been called in the grace of Christ. They were being transferred to the bondage of law.
8 The intense zeal of the apostle for the evangel he had proclaimed comes out in the fact that he calls down this anathema on himself, in case he should be guilty of distorting the message he is proclaiming. It is worthy of note that he is not objecting to the apostles of the Circumcision preaching a distinct evangel to them. That was what they had been commissioned for. But they had agreed that they would not go to the nations. Hence he repeats the words to you thrice.
9 The apostle now includes the Judaising teachers in the second anathema.
11 Those who were disturbing the Galatians had no message except what they had received from the twelve apostles. But Paul is unwearied in his insistence that he received nothing from them. His evangel was a fresh revelation made known to him by the Lord Himself. If Paul merely proclaimed what the twelve taught, why did he not receive it through them? What need for the Lord to descend and call him on the Damascus road? Why should he be severed from the rest at Antioch? Why did the believing Jews in Jerusalem oppose his ministry among the nations?
14 While his opposers know nothing of the grace of Paul's evangel, he was better acquainted with Judaism than they were. And not only so, but he had exceeded them in the energy and zeal with which he had defended it."
I'm gonna keep digging...maybe I'll find some "treasures"... :happy3:
Quote from: ReformerThere's no reason to believe the "gospel to the circumcision" is a different gospel than what is to be preached as "gospel to the uncircumcision," or, nations.
Yes, so there was always only one covenant: the covenant made with Abraham and his seed. This preceded and was never annulled by the covenant with death made by the Israelites, nor were they able to keep that covenant. But this one with Abraham stands because God himself keeps it.
Yes, the Seed, Jesus Messiah...however all this is properly divided, He's still the blood-line through it all...
Hi jabcat,
Thought you might be interested in reading this. Although I don't agree 100% with all he says, I found these articles very enlightening. You have to read all 7 parts to really get it though.
http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/CorrectPartitioning/AreTheBrideAndBodyIdentical0.html
CHB
I'll look at it, thanks Charlotte. In the middle of painting a wall right now, later :happy3:
Wow, what an awesome study! I need to spend more time in it, it's pretty involved...IMO, should be "required reading" :icon_flower:. Seems there is much to learn here if approached openly. Even if it weren't 100% accurate :dontknow:, there still seems plenty to consider.
A few things from it I'll note now, more about Paul's ministry later...I need to explore it more :thumbsup:. Thanks for the link!
According to the author, Knoch(?), as I gather so far;
The bride and body are not the same "entity".
Israel = the bride
Gentiles, nations = the body, grafted in
The 12 will reign over the renewal of Israel, leading to the marriage supper of the Lamb to His bride...we, the body of the bridegroom, will escort them to the the marriage
Matthew practically opens with the announcement: "Repent, for the heavenly sovereignty is at hand" (Matt.3:2). To the Jew in that day they were pregnant [words]. The sovereignty that held sway over Israel at the time of John the Baptist's official proclamation was an earthly sovereignty, exercised by a Gentile empire, in marked contrast to the heavenly sovereignty which had ruled Israel before their national divorce, before their Sovereign, their Husband, ceased to hold tribunal between the cherubim in the Most Holy of the temple. John's message was given to encourage the Jewish people to repent, to turn away from trust in earthly power and turn to repose in that kingdom and dominion under the whole heaven which had been promised them as the "people of the saints of the Most High" (Dan.7:27).
The message which John had was exclusively for Jews. They were encouraged to confess the sins peculiar to their situation, the sins of national adultery and of failure to desire the approval of none but their Lord (Matt.3:6).
Repentance and baptism were the keys of the kingdom; and they were held for use by our Lord during His earthly ministry. But afterward He gave them to Peter, a Jew, and Peter exercised this power to open in Acts 2 toward Israel and in Acts 10 toward believing or proselyte Gentiles.
Hi Jabcat,
What is your understanding of WHO Israel is...???
This to me is the crux of much misunderstanding within Christianity....just who is Israel.
In other words, from a historical perspective do you see Israel being that of only Jews?
I really liked what Cardinal wrote on page 2 of your thread...and also agree with both of you that the scriptures are a multi-faceted gem...in fact, the Hebrew has 4 layers to the interpretation of scripture...
The four levels of Biblical understanding are:
P [Pshat] - literal, simple - BREADTH
R [Remez] - parable, allegory - LENGTH
D [Derasha] - seek, search - DEPTH
S [Sod] - inner, mystical - HEIGHT
"What is Pardes? Pardes [H6508] is a Hebrew word used in the Bible that means a forest, orchard, or park, and is referred to as Paradise. It corresponds with the Greek word paradeisos [G3857], which also means a park, Eden, or Paradise.
In Hebrew, Pardes is spelled, PRDS which is also an acronym for the Hebrew words Pshat, Remez, Derasha, Sod. Each word represents a different level of understanding the scriptures......The journey into Pardes also represents our journey into deeper levels of intimacy with God our Father. It represents our journey into the relationship we once had in the Garden of Eden, hence the word Pardes ~ Paradise." ....
Blessings to you Jabcat,
DoD
:cloud9: DoD, we ARE on the same page......I posted about PRDS on another thread. :girlheart: Blessings....
Quote from: DaughterofDavid on March 13, 2009, 02:32:13 PM
Hi Jabcat,
What is your understanding of WHO Israel is...???
This to me is the crux of much misunderstanding within Christianity....just who is Israel.
In other words, from a historical perspective do you see Israel being that of only Jews?
I really liked what Cardinal wrote on page 2 of your thread...and also agree with both of you that the scriptures are a multi-faceted gem...in fact, the Hebrew has 4 layers to the interpretation of scripture...
The four levels of Biblical understanding are:
P [Pshat] - literal, simple - BREADTH
R [Remez] - parable, allegory - LENGTH
D [Derasha] - seek, search - DEPTH
S [Sod] - inner, mystical - HEIGHT
"What is Pardes? Pardes [H6508] is a Hebrew word used in the Bible that means a forest, orchard, or park, and is referred to as Paradise. It corresponds with the Greek word paradeisos [G3857], which also means a park, Eden, or Paradise.
In Hebrew, Pardes is spelled, PRDS which is also an acronym for the Hebrew words Pshat, Remez, Derasha, Sod. Each word represents a different level of understanding the scriptures......The journey into Pardes also represents our journey into deeper levels of intimacy with God our Father. It represents our journey into the relationship we once had in the Garden of Eden, hence the word Pardes ~ Paradise." ....
Blessings to you Jabcat,
DoD
Hey dod, I just explained the height, depth and so on thing to some people at work. I explained it just as you put forth.
My question is this. What about people who are half Jewish and half Gentile?
cp
Quote from: Cardinal on March 13, 2009, 02:42:28 PM
:cloud9: DoD, we ARE on the same page......I posted about PRDS on another thread. :girlheart: Blessings....
:thumbsup: :girlheart:.....I just love you sis....you are a blessing....same PAGE indeed!... :wink1:
DoD
Hello Claypot,
You ask..."My question is this. What about people who are half Jewish and half Gentile?"
I am not sure what you mean by this question....can you help me out?
Thanks,
DoD
Quote from: DaughterofDavid on March 13, 2009, 02:32:13 PM
Hi Jabcat,
What is your understanding of WHO Israel is...???
This to me is the crux of much misunderstanding within Christianity....just who is Israel.
In other words, from a historical perspective do you see Israel being that of only Jews?
I really liked what Cardinal wrote on page 2 of your thread...and also agree with both of you that the scriptures are a multi-faceted gem...in fact, the Hebrew has 4 layers to the interpretation of scripture...
The four levels of Biblical understanding are:
P [Pshat] - literal, simple - BREADTH
R [Remez] - parable, allegory - LENGTH
D [Derasha] - seek, search - DEPTH
S [Sod] - inner, mystical - HEIGHT
"What is Pardes? Pardes [H6508] is a Hebrew word used in the Bible that means a forest, orchard, or park, and is referred to as Paradise. It corresponds with the Greek word paradeisos [G3857], which also means a park, Eden, or Paradise.
In Hebrew, Pardes is spelled, PRDS which is also an acronym for the Hebrew words Pshat, Remez, Derasha, Sod. Each word represents a different level of understanding the scriptures......The journey into Pardes also represents our journey into deeper levels of intimacy with God our Father. It represents our journey into the relationship we once had in the Garden of Eden, hence the word Pardes ~ Paradise." ....
Blessings to you Jabcat,
DoD
were did you get this and can i use it?
thanks
chuckt
Quote from: chuckt on March 13, 2009, 02:56:40 PM
Quote from: DaughterofDavid on March 13, 2009, 02:32:13 PM
Hi Jabcat,
What is your understanding of WHO Israel is...???
This to me is the crux of much misunderstanding within Christianity....just who is Israel.
In other words, from a historical perspective do you see Israel being that of only Jews?
I really liked what Cardinal wrote on page 2 of your thread...and also agree with both of you that the scriptures are a multi-faceted gem...in fact, the Hebrew has 4 layers to the interpretation of scripture...
The four levels of Biblical understanding are:
P [Pshat] - literal, simple - BREADTH
R [Remez] - parable, allegory - LENGTH
D [Derasha] - seek, search - DEPTH
S [Sod] - inner, mystical - HEIGHT
"What is Pardes? Pardes [H6508] is a Hebrew word used in the Bible that means a forest, orchard, or park, and is referred to as Paradise. It corresponds with the Greek word paradeisos [G3857], which also means a park, Eden, or Paradise.
In Hebrew, Pardes is spelled, PRDS which is also an acronym for the Hebrew words Pshat, Remez, Derasha, Sod. Each word represents a different level of understanding the scriptures......The journey into Pardes also represents our journey into deeper levels of intimacy with God our Father. It represents our journey into the relationship we once had in the Garden of Eden, hence the word Pardes ~ Paradise." ....
Blessings to you Jabcat,
DoD
were did you get this and can i use it?
thanks
chuckt
ABSOLUTELY...!
Here is the link...http://members.cox.net/8thday/4levels.html
Be blessed!
DoD
awsome thanks for the link, i bet its heretical though :laughing7:
God bless
chuckt
Quote from: chuckt on March 13, 2009, 03:55:16 PM
awsome thanks for the link, i bet its heretical though :laughing7:
God bless
chuckt
Yes, I am sure to some it would be called that.... :laughing7:
Be blessed chuckt...
DoD
Also wanted to add Chuckt...
That just b/c I give a link to an article that I agree with..... doesn't mean that I agree with everything on that site....just wanted to say that in all seriousness.
DoD
Quote from: DaughterofDavid on March 13, 2009, 04:18:26 PM
Also wanted to add Chuckt...
That just b/c I give a link to an article that I agree with..... doesn't mean that I agree with everything on that site....just wanted to say that in all seriousness.
DoD
DoD
no clarification needed....as.....
that is a given with me :Yesss: i am the same with links i post.
and here is one i find alot of good info on:
http://www.heavendwellers.com/hd_death_soul_hell_menu.htm
Be well
euty
hello, DoD...
well, i'm not expert on it, but i believe there is the literal, natural israel, from the tribes, God's "chosen people"...the pure, absolute (whatever/whoever that is exactly, God knows, i don't) natural bloodline....and then there's perhaps a "spiritual israel", those given faith to believe in Jesus as Savior in this age of grace....i think some believe that group (we) have totally replaced israel in God's plan, but right now, i don't believe that's the case.
that may be part of the confusion as you say, but i also believe possibly an even bigger part of the confusion is as discussed in this particular study, that we mix the evangels and don't even realize it...that's why the distinction between the body and the bride, Paul and Peter's ministries, etc....now, where it all exactly fits together, i'm not sure...i'm trying to learn more about it.
if one is able to totally get beyond all that and into a spiritual realm, great and maybe that's where God wants us to go with it...however, as we "reason" with each other in the body, i'm afraid part of our tug-o-wars are often over things we don't even truly properly divide (accurately cut) in the first place...my :2c:.
God's blessing, James.
Quote from: jabcatAccording to the author, Knoch(?), as I gather so far;
Hi jabcat,
Knoch didn't write this, it was written by "Fredrik Homer Robison".
His name is at the end in very tiny letters.
CHB
got it, thanks
Quote from: DaughterofDavid on March 13, 2009, 02:54:22 PM
Hello Claypot,
You ask..."My question is this. What about people who are half Jewish and half Gentile?"
I am not sure what you mean by this question....can you help me out?
Thanks,
DoD
If you're 51% Jewish you won't disappear in the Rapture. You'll be left behind!
(God was never racist!!! There is no such thing as a Jewish race!! Nobody is going to disappear! The Rupture is hokem mixed with Bible verses, some of which have been altered.)
The dogs under the table?
Excerpt; "What would Jesus do? He had commanded the disciples not to go to the Gentiles and He Himself said He was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. One would think by the next verse alone that Jesus paid no attention to her whatsoever:
(Matthew 15:23 KJV) But he answered her not a word. . . .
By not answering her, Jesus was showing the disciples that He was not there to minister to the Gentiles and remained consistent regarding His command to them. But, apparently, she was pretty persistent, and it began to irritate the disciples, who themselves started to pester Jesus to just heal her and get rid of her....
...She was saying, "I know you are not sent to the Gentile, but to your people, but I am as a dog under the table of your people and even a dog gets some crumbs from the table of those you came to serve. You are bread to me, and there is no other place to get it. All I want is a few crumbs. Even a dog has that right.
She knew her place in regards to Jesus' ministry to the Jews. But, in spite of this, she knew she had a place, and she wouldn't leave her place from "under the table." And now, finally, Jesus turned to her...
DO WE REALIZE WHAT JESUS HAS DONE FOR US GENTILES?
...after Pentecost, and God essentially told Peter that though the Gentiles were to be considered dogs by the Jews, that was no longer so:
(Acts 10:28 KJV) And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
We, as Gentiles, were once considered dogs. Even Jesus called the Gentile woman a "dog," and therefore all Gentiles, dogs. But, because Christ shed His blood and died for all men, God did away with calling the Gentiles dogs.
...but now as believers, we are considered differently...
(Ephesians 2:12 KJV) That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world...""
But the problem is that we as [Gentile] believers must hold to our position in the "household of God" and not interfere with God's plan for Israel, but just preach the gospel. Scripture warns the Gentiles that they were made part of the olive tree and that we should not boast against Israel, yet the boasts continue through all kinds of "new" doctrines."
:dontknow: :Chinscratch:
http://www.velocity.net/~edju/Dogs.htm
Hi Jabcat,
Thanks for answering. I have not read any of Knoch that I know of....and so I don't know what his understanding of "Israel" is.
I would like to share with you what I have come to learn through the scriptures....that first and foremost *Israel* is the glorious representation of ALL 12 tribes (notice I say 12....for most think that Israel is made up of only the tribe of Judah ....which are commonly called the Jews....).
So THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL....consisted of all 12 tribes and....and these 12 tribes consisted of all different kinds of people....all ethnicitys....we see this in the exodus when " Moreover also, a mixed multitude, came up with them,—flocks also, and herds, exceeding much cattle, (ex. 12:38)....and let us also remember what Yahweh said about those who want to partake of the passover...
"And when there may sojourn with thee a sojourner who may wish to keep a passover to Yahweh, there must be circumcised to him every male and then, may he draw near to keep it, so shall he be as a native of the land,—but no uncircumcised male, shall eat thereof.
One law, shall there be for the native, and for the sojourner that sojourneth in your midst.
Thus did all the sons of Israel,—as Yahweh had commanded Moses and Aaron, so, did they.
And it came to pass, on this self-same day, that Yahweh brought forth the sons of Israel out of the land of Egypt, by their hosts." (Ex. 12:48-51).
Now I write all of that to lay the foundation of who it was that consisted of *Israel*....so that one can see that it was not just the jews (judah) but all the tribes and all those that joined themselves to Israel though the partaking of passover.
Spiritually (which is REALITY) *Israel* represents all those that like Jacob have undergone a *name change* through character development that has been wrought by the cross of Christ within the life of a believer.
Now going on a little further...there was a time in history where there was a UNITED Kingdom known as *Israel* ....this took place during the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon. Of all the twelve tribes 2 were given special mandates....one was a dominion mandate (this was given to Judah) and the other mandate was the birthright (this was given to Joseph). Scripture then tells us that this united Kingdom was Split after Solomon died...into 2 Kingdoms.....the Northern and Southern Kingdoms.
From that point on the Northern Kingdom was referred to as the House of Israel....also called the House of Joseph...and b/c Ephraim was Joseph's son and later on adopted by Jacob/Israel....it also was known as the House of Ephraim (for Ephraim & Manasseh were the legal custodians of the birthright name) and all those that were united with them could call themselves *Israelites*.
The Southern Kingdom was referred to as the House of Judah (this consisted of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin and some of Levi)...and these were the custodians of the Dominion mandate of which Yahshua came as the Lion of the tribe of Judah....Judah was not the tribe that had the right to use the name Israel, except by the consent of the birthright holders. So when one reads most of the writings of the prophets and they speak of Judah and Israel....hopefully this background that I have shared makes it easier to understand
Hope your still tracking with me :bigGrin:.....One house known as House of Israel/House of Joseph/House of Ephraim.....ALL the same....
The other is known as House of Judah....
Isaiah 5:7 says..."For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah His delightful plant..."
The Lord then gives the parable in Matt. 21:33-45 ...explaining the meaning of Isaiah's prophecy that I wrote above....The vineyard is the house of Israel (HOLISTICALLY all 12 tribes), the Kingdom of God. Judah, as one of the tribes, was a plant in the vineyard. But Judah was not the vineyard itself, but only a part of it.
The Lord has come as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah....we see this fullfilled in the Spring Feasts (Passover, Unleavened Bread, Pentecost)...and this was the dominion mandate being fullfilled...as in adam all die so too in Christ shall all be made alive.
He soon will return to fullfill the Autumn Feasts just as literal as He did the Spring Feasts and this will accomplish the Birthright Mandate... for this is the MARRIAGE of the Bride and Groom and....and this marriage brings forth the PROMISED SEED, which is Christ manifesting within you and this then will be when for He will bring many *sons* to glory.
The prophecy that Ezekiel spoke of in Chpt. 37:16-22....is the 2 Houses becoming ONE...(prophetically speaking of christians and Jews...and all those that have joined themselves to the Lord....all foreigners....that have come under the Lordship of Yahshua)
For we see in Isaiah 56:6-8..."And, as for the sons of the foreigner—Who have joined themselves unto Yahweh To wait upon him, and To love the name of Yahweh, To become his for servants,—Every one who keepeth the sabbath, lest he profane it. And who, layeth firm hold on my covenant,
Surely I will bring them into my holy mountain And make them joyful in my house of prayer, Their ascending-offerings and their sacrifices, being accepted upon mine altar,—For, my house, a house of prayer, shall be called, for all the peoples! Declareth My Lord, Yahweh, Who is gathering the outcasts of Israel:—Yet others, will I gather unto him Besides his own gathered ones.
This is the glorious salvation of ALL MANKIND...thus *Israel* is a nation that is made up of all kinds of people from different races and nationalities that are the citizens of the Kingdom of God.
Thank you my brother for taking the time to read all of what I have written...it took a while for me to write it ....but it is a subject that I feel is so misunderstood and has been for so long....and one I believe that the Lord is now bringing forth the TRUTH for all that desire to know the truth...
Be blessed Jabcat!
DoD
Thank you dear one, I'll study on it...
Studying this topic some more...here's what A.E. Knoch (Concordant Literal Version) says regarding this topic...I want to read this more closely myself...I'm still seeking to more fully get a handle on this...
"CHRIST and His kingdom occupies the place of prominence in the Greek Scriptures.
They chronicle its refusal when proclaimed by the King Himself, its rejection when
heralded by His apostles after His resurrection, its present abeyance, its reaffirmation
and realization in the days to come.
Only a very small portion of the Hebrew Scriptures was written to or for the
nations, or gentiles. By far the greater part is concerning the nation of Israel. The same
is true of the Greek revelation. Excepting Paul's epistles, all is directly related to the
Circumcision. Christ confined His ministry to the people of the covenant. Where was
nothing but crumbs for aliens in the accounts of our Lord's life. The chief of the
twelve apostles could with difficulty be persuaded to preach even to such a proselyte
as Cornelius. From Hebrews to Jude all is limited to the twelve tribes. The Unveiling
gives Israel the sovereignty of the earth.
Only Paul's epistles, from Romans to Philemon, are written to, or intended for, the
Uncircumcision. While all blessing for the nations was planned to come through the
sons of Israel, this channel is choked when they reject the testimony of the apostles, as
recorded in the book of Acts.
All blessing for the present is based on their apostasy,
and comes to us, not through them, but through their defection, and is limited to the
period of their rejection. Furthermore, the destiny in Paul's epistles is different. The
Circumcision and their beneficiaries are blessed on earth. The Uncircumcision of this
economy are blessed among the celestials.
This book is not the "New Testament" or covenant. The new covenant which
Jehovah will make with His people Israel is to be formed in the so-called "Old
Testament" (Jer.31:31-34), and is repeated in the "New" (Heb.8:8-13). In both cases it
is confined to the physical seed of Jacob, the same people who received the old
covenant at Sinai, and its place is in the coming kingdom. The grand division in God's
purpose is not between these two covenants, but rather between covenanted and
uncovenanted blessings. The nations or gentiles will share some of Israel's good
things when they are in favor once again, and are under the new covenant. But in the
great parenthetic period between their past apostasy and future fullness we have the
present grace. This is made known only in Paul's epistles and is entirely distinct from
the message of the scriptures to the Circumcision."
http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/ConcordantCommentary/CC00_B_GreekScriptures.htm (2 of 3) [03/
God's blessing, James.
I certainly believe whoever calls on the name of Jesus will be saved, that His death and resurrection was for Jews and Gentiles alike...but there's still something about the epistles to the Jews, and the epistles to the nations that I sense needs to be accurately cut...I believe I saw the lack of that yesterday in a sermon at my wife's "church"...the pastor using Jesus' teaching about the broad way, narrow gate, destruction, to mean most will be lost and go to hell for eternity...He used the "not everyone that says Lord, Lord, but him that does my will"...my thought was, so is salvation through works? That's not what he believes, yet he was using that scripture...he's a grace guy, although an ET'er...(also, I believe most will be saved through destruction, so this may not be the best example of mixing, maybe more so of interpretation/understanding). I just think it gets all mixed up though, so the same person can be giving 2 different messages...we're saved by grace, "to him that doesn't work it's accounted to him for righteousness", but then only those that do the right works avoid hell. Huh?
I still think a lot of that has to do with mixing these evangels, but I ADMIT, I'm at first base with this...still searching...
Note...I believe in obedience, submitting ourselves to God's will, resisting sin and looking to Him as the Author and Finisher, etc. I AM NOT ADVOCATING SIN MORE SO GRACE WILL ABOUND. But I do think we/I often confuse these issues.
Knoch himself believed our unity should exist as we seek/worship with a pure heart [a heart for the Lord], not on doctrine or particular levels of current understanding.
Please, no debate or "I've got this all figured out so take a flying leap"....but thoughts, insights, understandings welcome :2thumbs:
jabcat, and whoever . . .
http://www.againstdispensationalism.com/index.shtml (http://www.againstdispensationalism.com/index.shtml)
This url was posted some time ago in tentmaker. At this point I haven't searched for this topic in particular on the web. My problem is I learned of this area of doctrine years ago, having been raised in dispensational eschatology (The Rapture.) Dispensational pneumatology is why many deny the gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit are for today. Now I find it irksome to pursue typing, typing and typing about it. There are so many other able defenders of the faith! Why should I be conscripted into this dull and irritating warfare? At some point I simply have other more important things to do (or so I think.)
The best single book I know of simply puts forth the truth without analyzing dispensationalism. I've it found free on the internet by just looking for it. It is The Church Is Israel Now by Charles D. Provan and is available in hard copy from www.rosshousebooks.org It is a short (75 pages) concise book of indisputable Scripture truth that is summarized in the 4 pages Table of Contents. Section 1: [a list of] O.T. Titles and Attributes of Israel which are in the N.T. Referred to the Christian Church. Section 2: [a list of] O.T. Verses Referring to Israel which are Quoted in the N.T. as Referring to the Christians. Section 3: [a list of] O.T. Ethical Commands to Israel which are Quoted in the N.T. as Applying to the Church.
The best book analyzing dispensationalism that I've read, very well footnoted to refer the quotes from the major exponents of dispensationalism, is Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth by John H. Gerstner, Ph.D. In it the author says Oswald Allis' Prophecy and the Church is "probably the ablest critique ever written of the heart of dispensational theology." (p.152) It was recommended in a discussion of how dispensationalism makes void the cross of Christ.
"The Abrahamic covenant which made his natural descendants God's chosen was absolutely unconditional while the covenant of grace which brings the Church into being is conditional in that it requires faith." Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth by John H. Gerstner, Ph.D., Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc. p181-182 "Israelites become such by a natural birth while Christians become such by a spiritual birth." Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:30 This is of utmost importance to Dispensationalists, that being of the Church is through being reborn in spiritual supernatural regeneration and that being an Israelite is through being born in natural generation. The only reason I can come up with for Tony to say he's never heard of "racial" dispensationalism is from lack of self consciousness about what is inherent in this belief system. I only mention it because I'm concerned his comment would divert you in some way from this essential distinction for dispensationalists.
It is also important to understand that they teach these are two ways (dispensations) of salvation, some teaching 7 or 12 "gospels," though some are inconsistent on this and other points. John Hagee's teaching, (about which there is a thread on tentmaker you can add if you will, I don't know how) is an example of being consistent to dispensational principles.
It is also important to dispensationalism to hold in the Old Testament the Church was an unforeseen entity, a prophetic "parenthesis." A few of the passages and their fulfillment that show this is clearly not true: Hosea 1:10 (Romans (9:22-26), Hosea 2:23 (1 Peter 2:9-10), Amos 9:11 (Acts 15:16). What this does for dispensationalism is it makes most, if not all, of the N.T. refer to the racial Jew and not belong to the Church (except we can look over their shoulder in a secondary non-binding way.)
Israel in the O.T. refers to the Church in the N.T.: Exodus 19:5-6 (1 Peter 2:9), Jeremiah 24:7 (2 Corinthians 6:16), Jeremiah 31:31-34 (Luke 22:20), Leviticus 19:2 (1 Peter 1:15).
In the N.T., to belong to God's Israel is through a spiritual rather than a physical (racial) relationship. "Know, consequently, that those of faith, these are sons of Abraham." (Galatians 3:7, CLV) "Now if you are Christ's, consequently you are of Abraham's seed, enjoyers of the allotment according to the promise. (Galatians 3:29, CLV) Also Israel and the Church are an organic unity. They are one. The one, single olive tree that was Israel has the Gentiles of the Church grafted into it:
Romans 11:17-21, (CLV) . . .
17 Now if some of the boughs are broken out, yet you, being a wild olive, are grafted among them, and became a joint participant of the root and fatness of the olive,
18 be not vaunting over the boughs. Yet if you are vaunting, you are not bearing the root, but the root you.
19 You will be declaring, then, "Boughs are broken out that I may be grafted in."
20 Ideally! By unbelief are they broken out, yet you stand in faith. Be not haughty, but fear.
21 For if God spares not the natural boughs, neither will He be sparing you!
your brother, James Rohde
QuoteIn the N.T., to belong to God's Israel is through a spiritual rather than a physical (racial) relationship.
This was always true. It was always defined by a spiritual relationship. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. Isaac was the miracle child of the promise. Jacob wrestled with God and wouldn't let go until he received a blessing.
Genesis 32:28
And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed."and hast prevailed"H3201
יכול יכל
yâkôl yâkôl
yaw-kole', yaw-kole'
A primitive root; to be able, literally (can, could) or morally (may, might): - be able, any at all (ways), attain, can (away with, [-not]), could, endure, might,
overcome, have power, prevail, still, suffer.
"It was recommended in a discussion of how dispensationalism makes void the cross of Christ."
I'll look more closely at the details of your post, James, but the above quote in particular jumped out at me...I agree, and have thought about this...I'd think one would have to be careful and not take it too far, because yes, at some point the cross of Jesus could be missed, (even inadvertently) explained away...somewhere in all this, Jesus' death, blood, and resurrection has to be the common thread. I still think there's something to this context discussion, but I've got miles to go before I sleep... :happy3:
Quote: "Now I find it irksome to pursue typing, typing and typing about it. There are so many other able defenders of the faith! Why should I be conscripted into this dull and irritating warfare? At some point I simply have other more important things to do (or so I think.)"
My dear brother, if you're completely satisfied that you've got this figured out and it bothers you so to address someone still searching, please don't be burdened with my questions, and certainly don't see it as warfare with another believer. It's OK. God will lead me. God's blessing, James.
Quote20 Ideally! By unbelief are they broken out, yet you stand in faith. Be not haughty, but fear.
21 For if God spares not the natural boughs, neither will He be sparing you!
This is what we were talking about on the other thread, works, isn't it?
Be not arrogant, but fear. Fear is the Greek word, phobeo--sounds like the root for phobia, doesn't it?
But, I take it more as, pay attention! And, be humble.
There was a quote from Knoch warning about "new" doctrines which is not there now. I responded by touching on some history related to dispensationalism . . .
The "new" doctrine is the dispensationalism that Knoch and his early compatriot Bullinger taught. While one can trace their view of the millennium much earlier, certain points common with dispensationalists seem to come from the Spanish Jesuit Rivera (or, Ribera,) who died in 1591, who responded to the Reformation understanding that the Pope sat in the seat of anti-christ with futurism to interpret Revelation. Another source was German theologians at the end of the 1700's who advocated a dual seed, natural and spiritual. Much of it was taught in the close of the 1800's, though it popularly emerged in The Scofield Reference Bible which I believe was published in the beginning of the 1900's (1911?).
I agree Molly...I've just been burdened recently (maybe it's me, my compulsive nature) that there are so many different opinions, there are so many denominations, so many beliefs, so many saying so many different things...and I DON"T believe scripture contradicts itself, yet if we put it all in a sack, shake it up and start pulling out verses at random, it seems to me then there are things that are at the VERY least, very difficult to reconcile/understand. So, I'm so interested in this thought of are we properly dividing the Word, do we often take things out of context, are there some reasons for all these varying interpretations and doctrines that we could gain some clearer understanding on?
Again, an example....Paul says in essence, "you're saved by grace, not works, or you could boast...to him who believes and doesn't work, it is reckoned as righteousness to him"...Peter and other say other things about works, the Law, etc. (didn't even Peter and Paul have a conflict? :mshock:)....I'm really, honestly, becoming weary of all the differing opinions, and it seems, we can't even reach a concensus that perhaps there's something to even consider with all this...I am identifying with Brian to some degree when he thought he'd just sort of "drop out" from all of men's opinions, and seek God more through His Word and prayer...which we should be doing anyway, huh?
Quote from: reFORMer on March 17, 2009, 06:40:52 AM
Quote from: jabcat on March 17, 2009, 06:18:05 AM
"It was recommended in a discussion of how dispensationalism makes void the cross of Christ."
I'll look more closely at the details of your post, James, but the above quote in particular jumped out at me...I agree, and have thought about this...I'd think one would have to be careful and not take it too far, because yes, at some point the cross of Jesus could be missed, (even inadvertently) explained away...somewhere in all this, Jesus' death, blood, and resurrection has to be the common thread. I still think there's something to this context discussion, but I've got miles to go before I sleep... :happy3:
The "new" doctrine is the dispensationalism that Knoch and his early compatriot Bullinger taught. While one can trace their view of the millennium much earlier, and certain points common with dispensationalists seem to come from the Jesuit Rivera (or, Ribera,) who died in 1591 and from German theologians at the end of the 1700's, and much of it was taught in the close of the 1800's, it popularly emerged in The Scofield Reference Bible which I believed was published in the beginning of the 1900's (1911?).
Thanks, I'll continue to look at it.
QuoteI'd think one would have to be careful and not take it too far, because yes, at some point the cross of Jesus could be missed, (even inadvertently) explained away...somewhere in all this, Jesus' death, blood, and resurrection has to be the common thread.
Because it's all about Jesus--going all the way back to the beginning. Was Adam a Jew or carrying the seed of Christ? Abel is called righteous by Jesus. You cannot be righteous without Christ's seed. Abraham was a righteous pagan gentile lol. Following it down through a 'bloodline'--one is discarded and one is kept--Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau--they are brothers, but not equal. One has the seed, one doesn't. The elder serves the younger. So, also, the Law serves Grace.
However you want to parse it, the emphasis is always on Christ.
Quote from: Molly on March 17, 2009, 06:46:15 AM
However you want to parse it, the emphasis is always on Christ.
Yes, the Lamb slain...and the risen Savior.
Quote from: jabcat on March 17, 2009, 06:42:30 AM
I agree Molly...I've just been burdened recently (maybe it's me, my compulsive nature) that there are so many different opinions, there are so many denominations, so many beliefs, so many saying so many different things...and I DON"T believe scripture contradicts itself, yet if we put it all in a sack, shake it up and start pulling out verses at random, it seems to me then there are things that are at the VERY least, very difficult to reconcile/understand. So, I'm so interested in this thought of are we properly dividing the Word, do we often take things out of context, are there some reasons for all these varying interpretations and doctrines that we could gain some clearer understanding on?
Again, an example....Paul says in essence, "you're saved by grace, not works, or you could boast...to him who believes and doesn't work, it is reckoned as righteousness to him"...Peter and other say other things about works, the Law, etc. (didn't even Peter and Paul have a conflict? :mshock:)....I'm really, honestly, becoming weary of all the differing opinions, and it seems, we can't even reach a concensus that perhaps there's something to even consider with all this...I am identifying with Brian to some degree when he thought he'd just sort of "drop out" from all of men's opinions, and seek God more through His Word and prayer...which we should be doing anyway, huh?
I think the problem is it's hard to see the big picture. It's a very complicated book but the message is simple. And, it's the same message from start to finish. Jesus.
People get messed up when they try to make it about man. It is about man, but only in relationship to Him.
If you take Jesus out of the book, as many do, the whole thing gets perverted.
Quote from: jabcat on March 17, 2009, 06:27:39 AM
Quote: "Now I find it irksome to pursue typing, typing and typing about it. There are so many other able defenders of the faith! Why should I be conscripted into this dull and irritating warfare? At some point I simply have other more important things to do (or so I think.)"
My dear brother, if you're completely satisfied that you've got this figured out and it bothers you so to address someone still searching, please don't be burdened with my questions, and certainly don't see it as warfare with another believer. It's OK. God will lead me. God's blessing, James.
I don't mean to come across that way. I needed to go to sleep a little while ago. I'm trying to establish an earlier bedtime in spite of, I don't know what, an
Insomnia demon? Dispensationalism is such a large topic because it infects the way we look at so many things. There are of course many differences among dispensationalists.
There is one area I am yet inquiring concerning, but I don't expect much help from the dispensationalist. It is: what is the place of current Israel, particularly related to Scripture? Will a large or deciding portion of it be converted to follow Jesus? Many even today carry a Bible. That is (you realize) with a New Testament in it. Or, will it become the center and source of world wide deception. It seems I can read both into certain verses.
It is of some importance to me personally that I am understood as sympathetic with modern Israel, particularly in relation to its Moslem neighbors, though not to the extent of forgetting God loves the Moslem peoples too. (I have an esthetic attraction to Islamic culture, as one would savor a painting or a certain piece of music.) Dispensationalists curse those who don't agree with their view of Israel. We're said to believe in "Replacement Theology" and to hate Israel and be anti-semitic. This is not true of me. Nothing was "replaced," God's idea of Israel always was those who held in faith to His word. I'm not a racist. My support of Israel is not based on dispensational theology.
And I certainly don't want to create an ungodly warring with a brother...I'm sorry if any of this questioning/searching in this regard has been against God's will and/or damaged anyone. I think I'll just search it out for awhile on my own.
It does seem to be a big topic, and unfortunately, apparently one more of many things the body can divide over :sigh:. Get some sleep, God bless you, James.
QuoteThis is because dispensationalists curse those who don't agree with their view of Israel. We're said to believe in "Replacement Theology" and to hate Israel and be anti-semitic. This is not true of me. Nothing was "replaced," God's idea of Israel always was those who held in faith to His word. I'm not a racist. My support of Israel is not based on dispensational theology.
This is all propaganda. Not even worth considering...
And, the semites include the Arabs, as well, so that word doesn't even make sense the way the propagandists use it.
One of the commendations that can be made of dispensationalists is their teaching on our reproducing the character of Christ. The fruit of the Spirit is evident in many who view Scripture in this way. Those in what has been called "deeper life" teaching or the "Keswick Movement" are dispensationalists.
Quote from: reFORMer on March 17, 2009, 07:07:39 AM
One of the commendations that can be made of dispensationalists is their teaching on our reproducing the character of Christ. The fruit of the Spirit is evident in many who view Scripture in this way.
Do they require the same thing of physical Israel?
PS I don't pay much attention to these schools of thought, so I can never keep them straight. Personally, I consider most of them to be devised by the musterion anomia--those who would stand in place of Christ.
Quote from: Molly on March 17, 2009, 07:09:18 AM
Quote from: reFORMer on March 17, 2009, 07:07:39 AM
One of the commendations that can be made of dispensationalists is their teaching on our reproducing the character of Christ. The fruit of the Spirit is evident in many who view Scripture in this way.
Do they require the same thing of physical Israel?
No, not at all. The covenant to Abraham they believe was handed down to his descendents is irrevocable. The usual threats or sanctions when the covenant is mentioned in the Bible for failing to keep the Covenant, go after other gods and do wickedly is said by them to be temporary corrections. Total unbelievers go to the land of Israel to receive it as theirs by God given right because they were born "Jewish" (hence, "racial" dispensationalism.)
But, in reality, there is no such thing as a Jewish race according to the
Encyclopedia Judaica and the top 5 encyclopedias in the English language. It's a religion; always was. Zionist Jews are Askenazim, racially Turks, Huns, Syrians, etc., Jephathites, not Semites (children of Shem.) See the
Encyclopedia Brittanica's article on "Judaism," at least as recently as the 1978 edition.
Have you ever thought of this, that as God's Israel, along with believing Jews, we will some day perhaps be located in Jerusalem? The night before a brother taught this I had a dream of standing in mid air, being "flown" by the Spirit off of the American continent, across the sea to Jerusalem. Because we who are the temples of the Holy Spirit are God's city of shalom, I would have rejected his word if not for meeting this idea first in that dream.
Here's a great short book on the topic that I believe I read in the 70's: A Study of Dispensationalism by A. W. Pink (who was early on a dispensationalist.)
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Dispensationalism/dispensationalism.htm (http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Dispensationalism/dispensationalism.htm)
Though another topic...at that site is the Gill Archive. It has John Gill's (b.1697-d.1771) book on The Song of Songs: Exposition of the Book of Solomon's Song commonly called Canticles or, Solomon's Song which is one of the two best books I've ever found on the Song of Songs! http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Solomons_Song/song_preface.htm (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Solomons_Song/song_preface.htm)
QuoteHave you ever thought of this, that as God's Israel, along with believing Jews, we will some day perhaps be located in Jerusalem? The night before a brother taught this I had a dream of standing in mid air, being "flown" by the Spirit off of the American continent, across the sea to Jerusalem. Because we who are the temples of the Holy Spirit are God's city of shalom, I would have rejected his word if not for meeting this idea first in that dream.
I have thought that in the past, but they have made that place such a place of bloodshed and every foul thing for me, from fascism to atheism to apartheidism to materialism, I no longer have any interest. I do think the Jews are expecting to rule the world from Jerusalem, though, and probably plan to appoint one of themselves the Messiah.
However, if you are ruling from there, I will come visit for sure. :bigGrin:
Seriously, though, I don't think God ever meant to give a piece of land to a specific group of people. When he tells Abraham to lift his eyes and look, and everything he sees will be given to him, that has a spiritual meaning for me, not a physical one. It doesn't even make sense if it is physical. What Abraham sees is the inheritance.
14And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:
15For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.--Gen 13
(Though The Jerusalem below seems "mystically" to be the people who make love to religious systems in the place of God their husband) if the Jerusalem below is "physically" The Mother of Whores, then it may be destroyed one day, possibly by nuclear weapons (cf., Revelation 18.) While there may be some value in searching things out, I find futurist views very uncertain; but, I don't find the dispensationalists mentioning this point.
:cloud9: There was a big stir last year over the death of the leading Kaballahists/Jewish scholars. He was in his 90's I believe and left a note declaring he knew who the Messiah was from His studies, and it was encrypted, and read Jesus. The Messianics were thrilled, the Orthodox Jews, ah....not so much. :winkgrin: They're still looking for a flesh and blood man. Blessings....
Hi All,
Someone said something about two Gospels I don't think there are two Gospels just additions to it. I call it progressive revelation. In Moses day, they didn't have the New Covenant and when the New Covenant was presented Paul had not been given the Mystery {final revelation} until later in his writings. I don't see the final revelation that was given to Paul in but about three of his epistles. I think God's plan from the beginning wasn't completely revealed until Paul was given the "Mystery". I believe the plan from the beginning was what was revealed to Paul in the end, it just took a wondering through the wilderness to get there. Israel and those who believe in works are still wondering in the wilderness. The vail is still upon their eyes. I see that most people are still in the New Covenant where works is still a requirement. If this is correct, then the Millennium is for the removing of this vail.
There are still questions that I have about all of this. One thing is whether or not all of this has already happened? I am speaking about the Millennium.
I don't believe we are under any Covenants today, but most don't see this. When you read all of the epistles you can see a different understanding that all of the apostles had from paul and even paul in the beginning preached New Covenant but later began to see something better. When you come to see that all of the apostles were sent to the Israelites and Paul to the Gentiles, their writtings start to fall into place, make more sense. I believe all of the apostles knew about the final revelation but knew that it didn't apply to them. Remember they were to be sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Paul's name is not one of these.
The apostles except for paul was commissioned to preach the New Covenant to the Israelites because the Israelites were promised this. Paul came to see that we Gentiles and Jews who God had given this knowledge to were destined to be in the heavenlies. Not that we are any better than those who rule on earth, just a different place for 1000 years
Just the tip of the iceburg.
CHB
Quote from: CHB on March 17, 2009, 06:23:22 PM
I don't believe we are under any Covenants today, but most don't see this. When you read all of the epistles you can see a different understanding that all of the apostles had from paul and even paul in the beginning preached New Covenant but later began to see something better. When you come to see that all of the apostles were sent to the Israelites and Paul to the Gentiles, their writtings start to fall into place, make more sense. I believe all of the apostles knew about the final revelation but knew that it didn't apply to them. Remember they were to be sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Paul's name is not one of these.
Few would consider Judas Iscariat as remaining among the original apostles of the Lamb, but then again, maybe he represents God's saving work beyond this life. Was Paul the replacement for Judas? As a replacement he seems more likely than casting lots for Matthias.
Quote from: CHB on March 17, 2009, 06:23:22 PM
The apostles except for paul was commissioned to preach the New Covenant to the Israelites because the Israelites were promised this. Paul came to see that we Gentiles and Jews who God had given this knowledge to were destined to be in the heavenlies. Not that we are any better than those who rule on earth, just a different place for 1000 years
Scripture says, "All is yours," not just earth or the heavenlies.
Ephesians 2:1-7 (CLV) . . .
1 And you, being dead to your offenses and sins,
2 in which once you walked,
{flesh} in accord with the eon of this world, in accord with the chief of the jurisdiction of the air, the spirit now operating in the sons of stubbornness
{psychical, that is, soulical realm}3 (among whom we also all behaved ourselves once in the lusts of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and of the comprehension, and were, in our nature, children of indignation, even as the rest),
4 yet God, being rich in mercy, because of His vast love with which He loves us
5 (we also being dead to the offenses and the lusts), vivifies us together in Christ (in grace are you saved!)
{spiritual regeneration}6 and rouses us together
{soulical awakening} and seats us together among the celestials, in Christ Jesus,
{this is where we are now, even as we walk on the dirt}7 that, in the oncoming eons, He should be displaying the transcendent riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus.
Quote from: reFORMer on March 17, 2009, 08:15:49 PM
Quote from: CHB on March 17, 2009, 06:23:22 PM
I don't believe we are under any Covenants today, but most don't see this. When you read all of the epistles you can see a different understanding that all of the apostles had from paul and even paul in the beginning preached New Covenant but later began to see something better. When you come to see that all of the apostles were sent to the Israelites and Paul to the Gentiles, their writtings start to fall into place, make more sense. I believe all of the apostles knew about the final revelation but knew that it didn't apply to them. Remember they were to be sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Paul's name is not one of these.
Few would consider Judas Iscariat as remaining among the original apostles of the Lamb, but then again, maybe he represents God's saving work beyond this life. Was Paul the replacement for Judas? As a replacement he seems more likely than casting lots for Matthias.
Quote from: CHB on March 17, 2009, 06:23:22 PM
The apostles except for paul was commissioned to preach the New Covenant to the Israelites because the Israelites were promised this. Paul came to see that we Gentiles and Jews who God had given this knowledge to were destined to be in the heavenlies. Not that we are any better than those who rule on earth, just a different place for 1000 years
Scripture says, "All is yours," not just earth or the heavenlies.
Ephesians 2:1-7 (CLV) . . .
1 And you, being dead to your offenses and sins,
2 in which once you walked, {flesh} in accord with the eon of this world, in accord with the chief of the jurisdiction of the air, the spirit now operating in the sons of stubbornness {psychical, that is, soulical realm}
3 (among whom we also all behaved ourselves once in the lusts of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and of the comprehension, and were, in our nature, children of indignation, even as the rest),
4 yet God, being rich in mercy, because of His vast love with which He loves us
5 (we also being dead to the offenses and the lusts), vivifies us together in Christ (in grace are you saved!) {spiritual regeneration}
6 and rouses us together {soulical awakening} and seats us together among the celestials, in Christ Jesus, {this is where we are now, even as we walk on the dirt}
7 that, in the oncoming eons, He should be displaying the transcendent riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus.
Great stuff, James. :thumbsup:
Quote from: reFORMer on March 17, 2009, 08:15:49 PM
Few would consider Judas Iscariat as remaining among the original apostles of the Lamb, but then again, maybe he represents God's saving work beyond this life. Was Paul the replacement for Judas? As a replacement he seems more likely than casting lots for Matthias.
(Matt. 19:28) And Jesus said unto them, {Judas was among them} Verily I say unto you, that
ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.Judas was amo9ng those that Jesus was talking about.
Quote from: reFORMer
Scripture says, "All is yours," not just earth or the heavenlies.
Ephesians 2:1-7 (CLV) . . .
Who was Paul talking to here?
Quote from: reFORMer
1 And you, being dead to your offenses and sins,
2 in which once you walked, {flesh} in accord with the eon of this world, in accord with the chief of the jurisdiction of the air, the spirit now operating in the sons of stubbornness {psychical, that is, soulical realm}
The sons of stubborness, ah who were they but the children of Israel.
Quote from: reFORMer
3 (among whom we also all behaved ourselves once in the lusts of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and of the comprehension, and were, in our nature, children of indignation, even as the rest),
4 yet God, being rich in mercy, because of His vast love with which He loves us
5 (we also being dead to the offenses and the lusts), vivifies us together in Christ (in grace are you saved!) {spiritual regeneration}
6 and rouses us together {soulical awakening} and seats us together among the celestials, in Christ Jesus, {this is where we are now, even as we walk on the dirt}
7 that, in the oncoming eons, He should be displaying the transcendent riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus.
Yes, the one's Paul was referring to are in the heavenlies.
CHB
From the Concordant website:
".....attributed to both Miles Coverdale and John Wycliffe. It is worth knowing and should be copied into one's copy of the Bible for constant reference and for constant application to all studies made of the Sacred Scriptures.
THE GOLDEN RULE OF SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION
"It shall greatly helpe ye to understand Scripture,
if thou mark not only what is spoken or wrytten,
but of whom, and to whom, with what words,
at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances,
considering what goeth before and what followeth after."
"Articles on Various Subjects...Correct Partitioning"... http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/index.html
Quote from: jabcat on March 06, 2009, 01:47:29 AMI believe when taken in context and rightly divided, all scripture reconciles.
I agree that all scripture rightly divided reconciles. I just don't beleive that "taking things in context" the way to rightly divide God's world.
For example:
- Matthew 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
Here is the quote:
- Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. 2 As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images.
According to OT context God called His son Israel out of Egypt. Nothing in the context says anything about Jesus Christ. And when God called His son they rebelled and sacrified to false gods. Certainly that does not apply to Jesus Christ. IMO the gospel writer rightly divided the Word by quoting part of the context and ignoring the rest.
QuoteWell, Brother Bob, thanks for being so clear. This particular thread is not the place to continue pursuing this discussion, we're getting close to hijacking Paul's thread . Briefly, I believe we need to rightly handle the Word of God whether in this thread, or other areas of our life. Probably none of us has that completely figured out. However, IMO, not doing so causes and adds to confusion. I have a thread called "Context of Scripture" if any of us would like to pursue this particular topic further, or of course, please feel free to start your own
Yes anyone will agree that we need to rightly handle the World of God and not doing so causes confusion. The question is whether adherence to rules of "good hermeneutics" leads to rightly dividing the Word of Truth. I believe it does not. I believe the scriptures are veiled and only unveiled by Jesus Christ, not by context.
I especially agree with your last line. But if I say "Bob, Jesus told you that you would tear down the temple, but that He would rebuild it in 3 days. Would it possible that I might be speaking out of turn, not in the Spirit, or at least, without spiritual understanding?
As to "called out my son", I would think that was initially spoken primarily in a context, but with deeper spiritual meanings, including a foreshadowing of things to come.
As for good ole' Herman Nutix, I don't even know that guy :laughing7:.
Question I've been thinking about. God told the Israelites some very specific things wrt the Levitical Laws. If you weren't told later in scripture that Jesus fulfilled the Law, would you think it was you being told to obey the Levitical Laws, or would you agree that it was spoken primarily to a specific group other than you?
God's blessing, James.
"If I told you Bob, Jesus told you that you would tear down the temple"...
I've seen people actually do things similar to this, if not worse...and have probably done it myself!
Quote from: jabcat on April 10, 2009, 05:09:10 AM
I especially agree with your last line. But if I say "Bob, Jesus told you that you would tear down the temple, but that He would rebuild it in 3 days. Would it possible that I might be speaking out of turn, not in the Spirit, or at least, without spiritual understanding?
Of course it is possible for me to speak out of turn and not in the spirit. But I do believe that I crucified Christ, seeing as I commited my sins, and my sins were laid on Christ, and Christ bore the penalty of my sins, and Christ died on the cross because of my sins.
QuoteAs to "called out my son", I would think that was initially spoken primarily in a context, but with deeper spiritual meanings, including a foreshadowing of things to come.
But no one could ever derive from the context of that passage that it was referring to Christ. The context dictates that that is not talking about Christ since Christ is not Israel and since Christ never sacrified to idols. So how was the gospel writer justified in quoting that? Because He was driven by the Spirit of God.
QuoteQuestion I've been thinking about. God told the Israelites some very specific things wrt the Levitical Laws. If you weren't told later in scripture that Jesus fulfilled the Law, would you think it was you being told to obey the Levitical Laws, or would you agree that it was spoken primarily to a specific group other than you? God's blessing, James.
Many do try to apply the letter of various OT laws to themselves. They argue about which laws do and do not apply. So yes, I might think that. If I did, I'd be reading the OT in a veiled fashion.
On the other hand I believe the book of Leviticus was written TO and FOR us. Even PRIMARILY. Just not in the letter. Each physical law is a picture of some spiritual truth (not that I know what they are).
Here is a scripture:
- 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works
Let me rewrite it:
- 2 Timothy 3:16 The book of Leviticus is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works
If I am a man of God then the book of Leviticus is for me
- as instruction in righteousness
- to be profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction
- so that I may be perfect
Here is an example of Jesus applying the book of Leviticus:
- Mark 9:49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
The "sacrifices" in Leviticus were not human yet Jesus applied "every sacrifice" to men. The "fire" in Leviticus was literal fire but Jesus spoke of judgement fire. The "salt" in Leviticus was literal salt but Jesus spoke of spiritual salt.
Jesus was rightly dividing the word. He did not get that from the context in Leviticus.
IMO, for instruction, profitability, reproof, and correction, does not necessarily mean every scripture was written primarily to you. I don't think we're exactly discussing the same thing here. I have clearly specified that I believe there are layers of scripture, spiritual layers...there is profit in them for our learning, spiritual principles in every scripture. However, to primarily take the primary meaning and message of each and every scripture to say that it is primarily directed at Bob or James, I just understand at this time to be in error and to, at times, perpetuate confusion.
I'm using what I believe are obvious, simplistic examples...even perhaps to a point of silliness to make a point. I believe there are MANY more that are not so obvious, and actually pose a higher risk to encourage confusion. But to make the point, when Jesus told the disciples to get the donkey...you or I weren't there...we couldn't, nor were we intended to go get that donkey. I don't think we should go get one now, sit by the road, believing Jesus wants to come riding into our town on a donkey. Now, is there profit and instruction there, layers within the scripture from which we can benefit? I believe, certainly. We learn of His humility, we learn of the fulfillment of prophecy, we see the disciples' obedience and we should be obedient as well. But I haven't gone to get a donkey, and I'm not sure, but I'd just guess you haven't either.
God said some very specific things to the Israelites about the Levitical Laws...don't eat shellfish, don't do certain things with their land, laws concerning ritual cleanliness after childbirth, laws concerning bodily discharges (such as blood, pus, etc.) and purification, etc. So to try to apply those things to yourself personally, I hear you saying would be to read them in a veiled fashion. I don't disagree with that. However, my distinction and assertion would be, part of your reading them in a veiled fashion (not just YOU, but also me, whoever) would be because you were taking their meaning out of context, and directly/primarily attempting to apply them to yourself, rather than understand who was the primary intended recipient.
Again, I almost get the feel that we're talking, at least in part, about at least slightly different things. I certainly believe God veils/unveils. Perhaps part of that process is teaching us how to apply scripture, and part of that process is the following, as I've posted before...I love this, by the way, and for anyone who uses a dispensationalist label, especially in a diminishing fashion, both of these fella's were a LONG time before Darby and Scofield. I've never considered myself a dispensationalist anyway...I do try to understand and rightly divide and apply the Word of God, as I know do you.
Attributed to both Coverdale and Wycliffe;
THE GOLDEN RULE OF SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION
"It shall greatly helpe ye to understand Scripture,
if thou mark not only what is spoken or wrytten,
but of whom, and to whom, with what words,
at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances,
considering what goeth before and what followeth after."
Quote from: jabcat on April 10, 2009, 05:55:41 AM
IMO, for instruction, profitability, reproof, and correction, does not necessarily mean every scripture was written primarily to you.
If I am a man of God, the primary purpose of any scripture is for MY instruction in righteousness so that I may be perfect. If you notice Paul quotes many OT scriptures which are ostensibly TO Israel and then teaches doctrine about the church from them.
QuoteI don't think we're exactly discussing the same thing here. I have clearly specified that I believe there are layers of scripture, spiritual layers...
IMO those layers are the primary meaning. For example,
- Galatians 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Now if I go back to Genesis and read the letter of the sciprtures Paul is referring to, am I going to get instruction in righteousness so I can be perfect? Suppose Israel read the letter of those Genesis scriptures. Would they be getting instruction in righteousness? Paul said "do ye not HEAR the law" and then proceded to give the REAL MEANING of those scriptures and applied that meaning as instruction in righteousness TO the church. That is the primary meaning of those scriptures.
Quote...there is profit in them for our learning, spiritual principles in every scripture. However, to primarily take the primary meaning and message of each and every scripture to say that it is primarily directed at Bob or James, I just understand at this time to be in error and to, at times, perpetuate confusion.
If by "primary meaning" you mean "literal meaning" then I agree we should not apply the literal meaning of every scripture to ourselves. But the literal meaning is not the primary meaning. So yes, I believe the primary meaning of every scripture is primarily directed AT EVERY man of God.
QuoteI'm using what I believe are obvious, simplistic examples...even perhaps to a point of silliness to make a point. I believe there are MANY more that are not so obvious, and actually pose a higher risk to encourage confusion. But to make the point, when Jesus told the disciples to get the donkey...you or I weren't there...we couldn't, nor were we intended to go get that donkey. I don't think we should go get one now, sit by the road, believing Jesus wants to come riding into our town on a donkey. Now, is there profit and instruction there, layers within the scripture from which we can benefit? I believe, certainly. We learn of His humility, we learn of the fulfillment of prophecy, we see the disciples' obedience and we should be obedient as well. But I haven't gone to get a donkey, and I'm not sure, but I'd just guess you haven't either.
No, I would not apply the letter "go get a donkey" to myself. Nor would I be careful to literally salt some animal sacrificies in fire according to Leviticus. God told Abraham to "cast out the bondwoman". Does that mean Bob is supposed to "cast out the bondwoman" ? Yes, actullay it does, if one HEARS the law according to Paul.
QuoteGod said some very specific things to the Israelites about the Levitical Laws...don't eat shellfish, don't do certain things with their land, laws concerning ritual cleanliness after childbirth, laws concerning bodily discharges (such as blood, pus, etc.) and purification, etc. So to try to apply those things to yourself personally, I hear you saying would be to read them in a veiled fashion. I don't disagree with that.
If I tried to apply the letter of those things to myself it would be veiled. And "Don't go eat shellfish" was not instruction in righteousness for Israel since not eating shellfish is neither here nor there. But that scripture IS instruction in righteousness some way some how.
QuoteHowever, my distinction and assertion would be, part of your reading them in a veiled fashion (not just YOU, but also me, whoever) would be because you were taking their meaning out of context, and directly/primarily attempting to apply them to yourself, rather than understand who was the primary intended recipient.
Well that's what we're discussing here. I believe the opposite: To think that any scripture is not primarly give for your instruction in righteousness is to miss the boat.
QuoteTHE GOLDEN RULE OF SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION
"It shall greatly helpe ye to understand Scripture,
if thou mark not only what is spoken or wrytten,
but of whom, and to whom, with what words,
at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances,
considering what goeth before and what followeth after."
I'm not trying to be disparaging here. I'm just going to be very blunt about what I believe about that ^^^ rule. I believe that rule is the golden calf of scriptural interpretation. It replaces Jesus Christ.
- 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
The natural man can certainly follow each of the steps in the golden rule above:
- marking of whom it is written
- with what words it is written
- at what time it is written
- where it is written
- to what intent it is wirtten
- with what circumstances it is written
- what goes before
- what goes after
But the natural man still
can not know the things of the Spirit of God because they are
spiritually discerned.
The sciptures are revealed by Jesus Christ by faith, not by following certain rules.
- 2 Corinthians 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away
<br>
- Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.
Quote -"Don't go eat shellfish" was not instruction in righteousness for Israel either."
I didn't say that...it was however spoken. And I believe, to someone primarily besides Bob or James.
Quote - "To think that any scripture is not primarly give for your instruction in righteousness is to miss the boat."
I will accept that's your opinion. I would say some particular scriptures were given primarily for various audiances, yet with universal spiritual application for our instruction and edification. God can speak through every 'thou shalt not' if He so chooses.
Quote - "The sciptures are revealed by Jesus Christ by faith, not by following certain rules."
I agree God reveals, but IMO, God revealing doesn't exclude proper context and primary meaning.
I don't have perfect understanding, far from it. However, I try to examine people's doctrinal opinions to see if they (as best as I can understand) line up with accurately translated, properly divided, Spirit revealed scripture. I encourage everyone to do the same. But as we've both said, in the end, God veils and reveals.
I've pretty much said what I believe on this topic, and I don't believe in arguing for the sake of arguing, though it is my carnal nature. Probably doing much more than what we've done would just mostly be an exercise in strife...maybe someone else would like to reply, or maybe you have more to say. Unless prompted, I may just mostly back out for awhile. Also, as a mod, I believe it only behooves me to be involved in many topics only up to a certain point, unless of course, a topic becomes an actual mod issue. So, let's both pray for guidance and keep our eyes on the Savior; Who IS our primary focus.
Quote from: jabcat on April 10, 2009, 07:02:30 AM
Quote -"Don't go eat shellfish" was not instruction in righteousness for Israel either."
I didn't say that...it was however spoken. And I believe, to someone primarily besides Bob or James.
I realize you didn't say that jab. I wasn't trying to say that you said that. I was making a point based on what Paul said.
1. Paul said every scripture is instruction in righteousness for the man of God.
2. We disagree on which "man of God" the commandment "do not eat shellfish" is primarily for.
3. But whomever that commandment is primarily for, it still must be instruction in righteousness based on what Paul said.
And since Jesus said:
- Matthew 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
then the commandment "do not eat shellfish" as a
literal commandment to physical Israel
can not be the primary meaning.
QuoteI will accept that's your opinion. I would say some particular scriptures were given primarily for various audiances, yet with universal spiritual application for our instruction and edification. God can speak through every 'thou shalt not' if He so chooses.
I think there is a particular audience too jab, just a different one that what you think. I think the particiular audience is always the seed of Abraham, those of his faith in Christ.
The OT scriptures, at least in part, testified of us and were not even ministering to physical Israel:
- 1 Peter 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. 12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into
QuoteI don't have perfect understanding, far from it. However, I try to examine people's doctrinal opinions to see if they (as best as I can understand) line up with accurately translated, properly divided, Spirit revealed scripture. I encourage everyone to do the same. But as we've both said, in the end, God veils and reveals.
I've pretty much said what I believe on this topic, and I don't believe in arguing for the sake of arguing, though it is my carnal nature. Probably doing much more than what we've done would just mostly be an exercise in strife...maybe someone else would like to reply, or maybe you have more to say. Unless prompted, I may just mostly back out for awhile. Also, as a mod, I believe it only behooves me to be involved in many topics only up to a certain point, unless of course, a topic becomes an actual mod issue.
Fair enough jab.
I would just encourage you to test your belief that "properly dividing" means "those scriptures are to Israel and these are to me" by examining how Paul applies OT scriptures.
QuoteSo, let's both pray for guidance and keep our eyes on the Savior; Who IS our primary focus.
Amen jab & God bless.
Quote from: jabcat on March 17, 2009, 01:05:47 AM...I believe I saw the lack of that yesterday in a sermon at my wife's "church"...the pastor using Jesus' teaching about the broad way, narrow gate, destruction, to mean most will be lost and go to hell for eternity...He used the "not everyone that says Lord, Lord, but him that does my will"...my thought was, so is salvation through works? That's not what he believes, yet he was using that scripture...he's a grace guy, although an ET'er...(also, I believe most will be saved through destruction, so this may not be the best example of mixing, maybe more so of interpretation/understanding). I just think it gets all mixed up though, so the same person can be giving 2 different messages...we're saved by grace, "to him that doesn't work it's accounted to him for righteousness", but then only those that do the right works avoid hell. Huh?
Hey jab... I think Jesus gave a similar mixed message below. First works then grace.
Works Based
- Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Really Works Based
- Matthew 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Grace Based
- Matthew 19:25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Is see a parallel between Christ saying "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" regarding works and what Paul said "not of works lest any man should boast... for we are His workmanship created unto good works which God hath ordained that we should walk in them" in Eph 2.
I think even "in context" it in itself doesn't prove a lot because everything can be interpreted and intendid different ways
Quote from: NinjaWizards777 on April 11, 2009, 02:37:42 AM
I think even "in context" it in itself doesn't prove a lot because everything can be interpreted and intendid different ways
I agree, as you say, not "in itself"..only one of the factors..even in context, God still has to open our eyes :thumbsup:
Other than you won't die from allergic reaction to shellfish if you don't eat it...it is unclean because, though it is holy, set-apart from its environment by its shell(s), it can only move without guidance, only by squirts. A clean fish has scales, so is sanctified from the world; but, it also has fins, meaning it has internal guidance...not tossing a coin, not trapped by another, but able to excercise the inner motive to go somewhere else. God writes His laws in our hearts and minds that we love and approve of His will, doing it without having to be told or externally brought into bondage, subjected to another's will.
:cloud9: That's good reFormer.....I never understood some of the dietary laws except that some of them were bottom feeders, ie. eating that which is decaying (things of corruption). Blessings....
Quote from: reFORMer on April 11, 2009, 07:52:00 AM
Other than you won't die from allergic reaction to shellfish if you don't eat it...it is unclean because, though it is holy, set-apart from its environment by its shell(s), it can only move without guidance, only by quirts. A clean fish has scales, so is sanctified from the world; but, it also has fins, meaning it has internal guidance...not tossing a coin, not trapped by another, but able to excercise the inner motive to go somewhere else. God writes His laws in our hearts and minds that we love and approve of His will, doing it without having to be told or externally brought into bondage, subjected to another's will.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Cardinal on April 11, 2009, 01:34:55 PM
:cloud9: That's good reFormer.....I never understood some of the dietary laws except that some of them were bottom feeders, ie. eating that which is decaying (things of corruption). Blessings....
Actually, all of the dietary laws can be proven scientifically as well.
For example, As you alluded to, the shellfish absorb toxins from their environment; part of their job. They were not meant for food.
Barnabas interpreted the food laws as related to the types of people that we associate with, rather than as anything that God ever meant to be dietary:
10:1 But forasmuch as Moses said ;
10:2 Ye shall not eat swine nor eagle nor falcon nor crow nor any fish which hath no scale upon it, he received in his understanding three ordinances.
10:3 Yea and further He saith unto them in Deuteronomy ;
10:4 And I will lay as a covenant upon this people My ordinances.
10:5 So then it is not a commandment of God that they should not bite with their teeth, but Moses spake it in spirit.
10:6 Accordingly he mentioned the swine with this intent.
10:7 Thou shalt not cleave, saith he, to such men who are like unto swine;
10:8 that is, when they are in luxury they forget the Lord, but when they are in want they recognize the Lord, just as the swine when it eateth knoweth not his lord, but when it is hungry it crieth out,
10:9 and when it has received food again it is silent.
10:10 Neither shalt thou eat eagle nor falcon nor kite nor crow.
10:11 Thou shalt not, He saith, cleave unto, or be likened to such men who know not how to provide food for themselves by toil and sweat, but in their lawlessness seize what belongeth to others,
10:12 and as if they were walking in guilelessness watch and search about for some one to rob in their rapacity,
10:13 just as these birds alone do not provide food for themselves, but sit idle and seek how they may eat the meat that belongeth to others, being pestilent in their evil-doings.
10:14 And thou shalt not eat, saith He, lamprey nor polypus nor cuttle fish.
10:15 Thou shalt not, He meaneth, become like unto such men, who are desperately wicked, and are already condemned to death, just as these fishes alone are accursed and swim in the depths,
10:16 not swimming on the surface like the rest, but dwell on the ground beneath the deep sea.
10:17 Moreover thou shalt not eat the hare.
10:18 Why so?
10:19 Thou shalt not be found a corrupter of boys, nor shalt thou become like such persons;
10:20 for the hare gaineth one passage in the body every year;
10:21 for according to the number of years it lives it has just so many orifices.
10:22 Again, neither shalt thou eat the hyena ;
10:23 thou shalt not, saith He, become an adulterer or a fornicator, neither shalt thou resemble such persons.
10:24 Why so?
10:25 Because this animal changeth its nature year by year, and becometh at one time male and at another female.
10:26 Moreover He hath hated the weasel also and with good reason.
10:27 Thou shalt not, saith He, become such as those men of whom we hear as working iniquity with their mouth for uncleanness, neither shalt thou cleave unto impure women who work iniquity with their mouth.
10:28 For this animal conceiveth with its mouth.
10:29 Concerning meats then Moses received three decrees to this effect and uttered them in a spiritual sense;
10:30 but they accepted them according to the lust of the flesh, as though they referred to eating.
10:31 And David also receiveth knowledge of the same three decrees, and saith Blessed is the man who hath not gone in the counsel of the ungodly-even as the fishes go in darkness into the depths;
10:32 and hath not stood in the path of sinners-just as they who pretend to fear the Lord sin like swine;
10:33 and hath not sat on the seat of the destroyersas the birds that are seated for prey.
10:34 Ye have now the complete lesson concerning eating.
10:35 Again Moses saith;
10:36 Ye shall eat everything that divideth the hoof and cheweth the cud.
10:37 What meaneth he?
10:38 He that receiveth the food knoweth Him that giveth him the food, and being refreshed appeareth to rejoice in him.
10:39 Well said he, having regard to the commandment.
10:40 What then meaneth he?
10:41 Cleave unto those that fear the Lord, with those who meditate in their heart on the distinction of the word which they have received, with those who tell of the ordinances of the Lord and keep them,
10:42 with those who know that meditation is a work of gladness and who chew the cud of the word of the Lord.
10:43 But why that which divided the hoof?
10:44 Because the righteous man both walketh in this world, and at the same time looketh for the holy world to come.
10:45 Ye see how wise a lawgiver Moses was.
10:46 But whence should they perceive or understand these things?
10:47 Howbeit we having justly perceived the commandments tell them as the Lord willed.
10:48 `To this end He circumcised our ears and hearts, that we might understand these things.
Multiple levels, Martin. The physical is always the shadow of the spiritual.
Quote from: Doc on April 13, 2009, 08:08:11 AM
Quote from: Cardinal on April 11, 2009, 01:34:55 PM
:cloud9: That's good reFormer.....I never understood some of the dietary laws except that some of them were bottom feeders, ie. eating that which is decaying (things of corruption). Blessings....
Actually, all of the dietary laws can be proven scientifically as well.
For example, As you alluded to, the shellfish absorb toxins from their environment; part of their job. They were not meant for food.
:cloud9: Which begs the question........why then, did He make them taste so good with a little shrimp sauce? :mblush: :winkgrin: Blessings....
Because we eat demons for breakfast! Death is swallowed up by victory!
:cloud9: roflol...... :thumbsup: