Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8972 total)
171 online now:
dwise1, ringo, Taq (3 members, 168 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,447 Year: 7,195/23,288 Month: 1,101/1,214 Week: 113/303 Day: 33/40 Hour: 2/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Continuing the Endless Discussion between GDR and traditional Protestantism
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 76 of 103 (874919)
04-11-2020 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by GDR
04-11-2020 7:10 PM


Re: The Rapture is for the Church, the Day of the Lord is for unbelievers
Believers do not "look forward to a wrathful act," you really have to get this sorted out better. Believers look forward to the Rapture to be with Jesus in heaven and be permanently changed to fit into the Kingdom of God. Where the Day of the Lord comes in has to do with the playing out of the whole historical thrust of scripture from beginning to end. There IS a history that IS playing out that is outlined in the Bible. The "end times" of course refers to how this history comes to an end and that is what I am doing with the Pre-Tribulation Rapture. The Rapture comes first and I could stop there because that's what I personally have to look forward to if I am alive at that point.

But I actually care about the people who won't go in the Rapture and what is coming on the earth after the Rapture is the Wrath of God being poured out. This is what the Day of the Lord refers to, it is what the Great Tribulation refers to, it is what is described here and there in the prophets of the OT and in great detail in the middle part of the Book of Revelation.

If I belong to Jesus I'm not going to have to live through all this, but my unsaved family and friends will have to if it comes in our lifetime. It may not come until well past our lifetime, who knows, but some people are going to have to live through it whenever it occurs. This applies to them.

The main group to be left on the earth after the Church is raptured, besides all atheists, will be the Jews, and the Day of the Lord is the last seven years of God's dealings with Israel as described in the Old testament. Some Christians think Israel is out of the picture completely, that their role ended when Jesus came. I more or less accepted that for a long time but then I got into the thinking behind the Pre-Tribulation rapture and finally accepted that after the Church is gone what happens is that God resumes His dealings with Israel pretty much in Old Testament terms. During the Day of the Lord millions of people will be saved, and that includes a third of the Jews and millions of others from every people group on earth. This is all going to go on during the periodic and progressive destructions of the planet and the political domination of the Antichrist and the manifestation of demon hordes. I hate to think of ANYONE going through all that and those who hold this point of view want to be sure people have some idea of what is coming so they can deal with it better. \

OK? There's more but this should explain why the Wrath of God is so important in this discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by GDR, posted 04-11-2020 7:10 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by GDR, posted 04-11-2020 9:00 PM Faith has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5373
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 77 of 103 (874921)
04-11-2020 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
04-11-2020 7:37 PM


Re: The Rapture is for the Church, the Day of the Lord is for unbelievers
Faith writes:

Believers do not "look forward to a wrathful act," you really have to get this sorted out better. Believers look forward to the Rapture to be with Jesus in heaven and be permanently changed to fit into the Kingdom of God. Where the Day of the Lord comes in has to do with the playing out of the whole historical thrust of scripture from beginning to end. There IS a history that IS playing out that is outlined in the Bible. The "end times" of course refers to how this history comes to an end and that is what I am doing with the Pre-Tribulation Rapture. The Rapture comes first and I could stop there because that's what I personally have to look forward to if I am alive at that point.

But I actually care about the people who won't go in the Rapture and what is coming on the earth after the Raptur e is the Wrath of God being poured out. This is what the Day of the Lord refers to, it is what the Great Tribulation refers to, it is what is described here and there in the prophets of the OT and in great detail in the middle part of the Book of Revelation.

If I belong to Jesus I'm not going to have to live through all this, but my unsaved family and friends will have to if it comes in our lifetime. It may not come until well past our lifetime, who knows, but some people are going to have to live through it whenever it occurs. This applies to them.

I get all that. I’m not saying that you want a wrathful god and you want everyone saved. However, it seems that you believe in a wrathful God, and if we are to look to Jesus to understand the Father then it is clear He isn’t a wrathful god.

Faith writes:

The main group to be left on the earth after the Church is raptured, besides all atheists, will be the Jews, and the Day of the Lord is the last seven years of God's dealings with Israel as described in the Old testament. Some Christians think Israel is out of the picture completely, that their role ended when Jesus came. I more or less accepted that for a long time but then I got into the thinking behind the Pre-Tribulation rapture and finally accepted that after the Church is gone what happens is that God resumes His dealings with Israel pretty much in Old Testament terms. During the Day of the Lord millions of people will be saved, and that includes a third of the Jews and millions of others from every people group on earth. This is all going to go on during the periodic and progressive destructions of the planet and the political domination of the Antichrist and the manifestation of demon hordes. I hate to think of ANYONE going through all that and those who hold this point of view want to be sure people have some idea of what is coming so they can deal with it better.

First off I should remind you that Jesus was a Jew. Also, you might want to be careful as Paul says this in Corinthians 4

quote:
5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.
I suggest as Christians we should stop worrying about who is good to go and who isn’t. Jesus’ teaching is also clear, and consistent with what Paul is saying in that verse from Corinthians. It isn’t about our theology but about our heart.

I would also like to look at this from another POV. You, correct me if I’m wrong, are trying to hold to the beliefs of the reformists of 500 years ago. (There were divergent views amongst that group even then.)

The reason for the reformation had some but not much to do with theological differences with the church, but about actual church practices and particularly the pernicious practice of selling indulgences. The church had also become a route to political power and so the church had become a route to wealth and power. (A lot like the Temple in Jesus’ day.) It was a very unhealthy situation and led to much abuse and very little in the way of any actual Christian practices being followed.

Also, up to that time the Bible was not available to the masses and was only available as the “Vulgate” which was in Latin, which only the highly educated men, primarily the priests could read at all. The priests considered themselves the only ones qualified to interpret the Scriptures, and were more than happy with the status quo.

Around that time there were those who started translating the Scriptures into the local languages. Also the printing press was now readily available and these local translations began to be distributed. The church fought against this to the extent that some of those involved were executed or imprisoned.
Now for the first time, in a long time, there were people like Luther and Calvin who were outside the church who could read, digest and interpret the Scriptures for the masses. They made huge strides in some areas, particularly in the understanding of God’s grace. However, they had very little to go on, aside from the Scriptures themselves, as they worked out their theology,.

Let’s fast forward 500 years to today. During that time there have been numerous other scholars and theologians giving us new insights into the Scriptures. However, starting about 60 years ago some scholars started to take an interest in studying the Scriptures in their historical context and getting away from the idea of reading the Scriptures as if they were written for the current time and culture.

There was a good reason for this having started then. The world had gotten through the turmoil of the first half of the 20th century and various early historical documents were now much more readily available. The research of the Dead Sea Scrolls that were found in the 40’s were extremely helpful. These scholars were now able to vastly increase their ability to accurately translate all of these documents including the Scriptures, as well as gaining considerable knowledge of the culture, their customs and their beliefs.

In more recent years the internet has made these early documents even more readily available, and have made it possible for scholars to collaborate and pool their understandings. With all of this we have had since the reformation a huge pool of scholarship to help us grasp the Christian message as Jesus understood it, taught it, died and was resurrected for it. Thank heavens for the reformation, but I suggest that there is a lot more to be gleaned from the Scriptures than was understood at that time.
It is similar in some ways the study of science. Up until the early part of the 20th century orthodox science believed in the deterministic universe of Newtonian physics. Then all of a sudden along comes the science of Einstein with his work on relativity and then special relativity. Scientific orthodoxy suddenly looked very different. Then with the science of QM scientific orthodoxy looked different again.

I suggest that as new insights and scholarship come along we should change our Christian orthodoxy in regard to the Scriptures, reinforcing some belief and modifying others. I think that as Christians we shouldn’t lock ourselves away from any new insights into our theology and particularly we shouldn’t put on blinkers and rigidly follow a 500 year old understanding of the Scriptures that involved a relatively few theologians without much to go on.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 04-11-2020 7:37 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 04-11-2020 9:26 PM GDR has responded
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 2:34 AM GDR has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 78 of 103 (874923)
04-11-2020 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by GDR
04-11-2020 9:00 PM


Re: The Rapture is for the Church, the Day of the Lord is for unbelievers
...However, it seems that you believe in a wrathful God, and if we are to look to Jesus to understand the Father then it is clear He isn’t a wrathful god.

Sure he is. He's the same God as the God of the Old Testament. What could drive me bonkers dealing with you is that you just believe what you want to believe and blithely toss away what you don't like. so of course you must toss away the following:

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 writes:

when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

That speaks of JESUS as a wrathful God coming in vengeance. Jesus, GDR, Jesus. The Bible really is a whole from beginning to end, it reveals a God both of great mercy and great wrath.

Actually, no, none of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture thinking comes from the Reformed perspective. Reformed churches don't teach it. So I am departing from that theological camp in following this point of view.

You are quite wrong about the Reformation teaching, however, it was a very strongly theological rejection of the Roman Church for its doctrine of salvation by works in particular. The Roman Church certainly knew what it was being criticized for. All you have to do is read the Council of Trent's curses on the Protestant doctrines concerning salvation. The sale of indulgences was simply the original offense that drew Luther's attention to the corruptions of the Church. After studying its practices and history in the light of the Bible he came to realize that the corruption was far deeper than any specific offense, the Roman Church was not a Christian body at all and the Pope was the Antichrist.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by GDR, posted 04-11-2020 9:00 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by GDR, posted 04-11-2020 9:51 PM Faith has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5373
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 79 of 103 (874924)
04-11-2020 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
04-11-2020 9:26 PM


Re: The Rapture is for the Church, the Day of the Lord is for unbelievers
Faith writes:

Sure he is. He's the same God as the God of the Old Testament. What could drive me bonkers dealing with you is that you just believe what you want to believe and blithely toss away what you don't like. so of course you must toss away the following:

Anyone can pull things out of the overall context of the Bible to confirm whatever it is that they are looking to confirm. The writers of the non-Gospel books of the NT were the first theologians and their theological beliefs aren't always consistent with each other. Even the verse I quote and the one you quoted had Paul disagreeing with himself. We have to keep in mind that Paul was writing to very different churches and dealing with different issues.

Faith writes:

You are quite wrong about the Reformation teaching, however, it was a very strongly theological rejection of the Roman Church for its doctrine of salvation by works in particular. The Roman Church certainly knew what it was being criticized for. All you have to do is read the Council of Trent's curses on the Protestant doctrines concerning salvation. The sale of indulgences was simply the original offense that drew Luther's attention to the corruptions of the Church. After studying the Bible he came to realize that the corruption was far deeper than any specific offense, the Roman Church was not a Christian body at all and the Pope was the Antichrist.

So we just throw out 500 years of Christian acholarship.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 04-11-2020 9:26 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 04-11-2020 9:58 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 80 of 103 (874925)
04-11-2020 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by GDR
04-11-2020 9:51 PM


Re: The Rapture is for the Church, the Day of the Lord is for unbelievers
Oh blithering nonsense. Paul is not contradicting himself, that's just your own weird mental set that can't accept both sides of God and Jesus. And I'm fine with continuing scholarship that continues to plumb the depths of scripture but what yours does is rip it up, shred it, make it contradict itself. No that's not scholarship.

You actually think the Catholic point of view that ignores the theology of the Reformation is progress? Excuse me while I go and tear my hair out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by GDR, posted 04-11-2020 9:51 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 81 of 103 (874939)
04-12-2020 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by GDR
04-11-2020 9:00 PM


Re: The Rapture is for the Church, the Day of the Lord is for unbelievers
Yes Luther was a priest and he objected to indulgences. He thought the Pope would appreciate his efforts. Instead the Pope excommunicated him. That set him on the study that eventually showed him that the Pope is scripturally the Antichrist. The Roman Church WAS the main political power in Europe. All the kings had to serve the Pope. One king that dared to object to a papal decree was severely humiliated by the Pope, having to stand barefoot in the snow for an audience with him or something like that. It wasn't just "leading" to political power, it WAS political power.

The Dead Sea Scrolls pretty mucyh verified what we already knew. For instance their copy of the OT is identical to the one we had.

You don't say exactly what you think all the newly discovered documents contributed to theology. My impression has been they contributed nothing new. If they contributed YOUR theology then they undid the entire previous two thousand years. That's not what I'd call progress in scholarship.

There were always dissidents who tried to take the scriptures in the vernacular to the people. Itinerant evangelists such as Peter Waldo of the Waldensians, a Christian community hiding in the Alps from the RCC. Wycliff was another. Jan Hus was another. Some got burned at the stake. The point is I know quite a bit of Christian history and quite a bit about newly found documents and how what they actually contributed was heresy for the most part.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by GDR, posted 04-11-2020 9:00 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by GDR, posted 04-12-2020 2:43 AM Faith has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5373
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 82 of 103 (874940)
04-12-2020 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
04-12-2020 2:34 AM


Re: The Rapture is for the Church, the Day of the Lord is for unbelievers
Faith writes:

You don't say exactly what you think all the newly discovered documents contributed to theology. My impression has been they contributed nothing new. If they contributed YOUR theology then they undid the entire previous two thousand years. That's not what I'd call progress in scholarship.


The point was that it gave them increased knowledge of the language and culture making for better translation and understanding what was meant in the context of the culture and time.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 2:34 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 2:55 AM GDR has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 83 of 103 (874942)
04-12-2020 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by GDR
04-12-2020 2:43 AM


Re: The Rapture is for the Church, the Day of the Lord is for unbelievers
The point was that it gave them increased knowledge of the language and culture making for better translation and understanding what was meant in the context of the culture and time.

Again you aren't specific but my impression again is that we already had tons of knowledge of language and culture by the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls at least. When Erasmus made his translation he had original Greek manuscripts for the first time and other documents that came from the East as Christians were driven out by Islam. That was a great boost to learning but not much has happened since. There has been a big hullaballoo about some supposedly extremely early Bibles that have been foisted on the Church as a corrective to the Textus Receptus. As I studied that situation I joined with those who see those old translations as coming from the early heresy camps. They are in remarkably good shape for such early documents, quite pristine, which demonstrates LACK OF USE and the lack of use suggests they were not regarded as accurate. Too bad. They got foisted on the Church anyway, they now underlie the newer translations and have poisoned the whole arena of textual analysis. If you think they are wonderful new translations as so many do I'm afraid I disagree. They are heretical, they are bogus. I don't see what they would contribute to your bizarre theology anyway. They mostly just eliminate some of the best known passages.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by GDR, posted 04-12-2020 2:43 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by GDR, posted 04-12-2020 11:08 AM Faith has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5373
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 84 of 103 (874971)
04-12-2020 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
04-12-2020 2:55 AM


Re: The Rapture is for the Church, the Day of the Lord is for unbelievers
Yes, at the time of the reformation there was a very large increase in the understanding of the Scriptures as they were now available to so many more individuals. However that doesn't mean that subsequent generations couldn't bring new light to them, nor should we believe that future generations won't advance our understanding of the Scriptures, so that we can better understand God's call on our lives.

I truly hope you have a very Happy Easter even in this difficult time.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 2:55 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 1:31 PM GDR has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 85 of 103 (874972)
04-12-2020 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by GDR
04-12-2020 11:08 AM


Re: The Rapture is for the Church, the Day of the Lord is for unbelievers
Happy Easter to you too. I've spent a lot of time over the last few days listening to great Christian music. That will suffice for me this year.

GDR, the scriptures weren't generally available until the printing press and that did come soon after the Reformation I think (?). Otherwise only priests like Luther had the Bible. And Erasmus who also had the Greek manuscripts to work from in doing his translation, and I think Luther had Erasmus' translation and wasn't just confined to the Vulgate. Also Bibles in other languages than Latin and Greek. Bibles all had to be copied by hand until the printing press.

You don't say WHAT "light" was supposedly shed on the scriptures by the new documents. Possibly new insights into the culture of the time of the apostles and earlier but nothing that changed the meaning of the scripture. Good preachers usually include the cultural context of the passage they are preaching on, it brings it to life. But as for affecting the meaning why should it change? All the books of the Bible were passed down through the centuries, why would that change? There's a whole discipline of textual criticisim that compares all the copies and fragments of copies we have to correct small errors that accumulated in some lines of copying but they are able to do that. If you think some kind of substantive changes occured please be specific.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by GDR, posted 04-12-2020 11:08 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by GDR, posted 04-12-2020 8:39 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 87 by GDR, posted 04-12-2020 8:40 PM Faith has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5373
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 86 of 103 (875003)
04-12-2020 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Faith
04-12-2020 1:31 PM


There is still more to learn
Double post

Edited by GDR, : No reason given.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 1:31 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5373
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 87 of 103 (875004)
04-12-2020 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Faith
04-12-2020 1:31 PM


There is still more to learn
Faith writes:

GDR, the scriptures weren't generally available until the printing press and that did come soon after the Reformation I think (?). Otherwise only priests like Luther had the Bible. And Erasmus who also had the Greek manuscripts to work from in doing his translation, and I think Luther had Erasmus' translation and wasn't just confined to the Vulgate. Also Bibles in other languages than Latin and Greek. Bibles all had to be copied by hand until the printing press.

My understanding is that Erasmus refined both Latin and Greek manuscripts. Luther worked from the Latin translating to German and Wycliffe finished up the translation into English although much had been done earlier. The printing press had a huge impact.

Faith writes:

You don't say WHAT "light" was supposedly shed on the scriptures by the new documents. Possibly new insights into the culture of the time of the apostles and earlier but nothing that changed the meaning of the scripture. Good preachers usually include the cultural context of the passage they are preaching on, it brings it to life. But as for affecting the meaning why should it change? All the books of the Bible were passed down through the centuries, why would that change? There's a whole discipline of textual criticisim that compares all the copies and fragments of copies we have to correct small errors that accumulated in some lines of copying but they are able to do that. If you think some kind of substantive changes occured please be specific.

Firstly you can’t change the meaning of the Scriptures, the meaning is simply what the authors intended it to mean. What can change is that with so much more historical knowledge we have a better understanding of what the writers intended.
One of the areas for example is understanding that much of what Jesus talked about was specifically directed against the militant revolutionary nationalism at the time. When He referred to the horrendous upheaval that would happen in the life times of some of those present He was talking about Jerusalem and the Temple. He wasn’t speaking eschatologically. In fact there is a great deal that has been taken to be about end times when it was about His message opposing any violent revolution. We are much better able to grasp the anti-revolutionary understanding of Jesus’ message now, than was understood in the past.
Just a little thing but for example we see this verse from Matthew 11
quote:
7 As John’s disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swayed by the wind?
The reed that was mentioned in that verse represents Tiberious Caesar as that was used as an image for him and was even on the coins of that era.

The historical study has also seen so much of what has been perceived as a message within our own cultural contexts and put it back where it firmly belongs in its 1st century Jewish culture and understood was it fits in with the Jewish beliefs of that day.

It is a lot of little things like that but it is the overall when the NT is read with an understanding of the historical backdrop including the political pressures on Jesus but virtually every power group in the country it brings the enormity of the whole narrative so much closer to home.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 1:31 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 9:55 PM GDR has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 88 of 103 (875007)
04-12-2020 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by GDR
04-12-2020 8:40 PM


Re: There is still more to learn
I don't see anything anywhere that justifies your idea that Jesus was in any way concerned with the revolutionary activities around him. He seems to me to be utterly uninvolved with any of that. Doesn't He put down one zealot? Sorry I'm not remembering, I would have to do more research to answer you here and I don't have the patience so I'm afraid I'm more or less tossing this off. Jesus was concerned with the religious leaders, the Pharisees in particular, who had mangled the scriptures to pile on all kinds of traditiona that made life more difficult for people and deprived them of salvation. That's the theme I see running through the New Testament, nothing to do with any militant movements.

Certainly He did refer to the destruction that was coming when the Roman army attacked Jerusalem in 70 AD, and warned His disciples to get out of the city. Not sure what point you are making about that.

There is plenty of evidence for the Rapture but since I don't know what you think that evidence is I don't know where to start to defend it.

The verse about John the Baptist being compared to a reed hardly seems to lend itself to an image of Tiberius Caesar and the idea just leaves me speechless. If there was such an allusion what on earth would it mean in connection with John the Baptist?

And as usual I have NO idea what you think is being imposed on the scripture from OUR culture. Zip. I don't know where to start to try to discuss any of this.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by GDR, posted 04-12-2020 8:40 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by GDR, posted 04-13-2020 3:01 PM Faith has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5373
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 89 of 103 (875034)
04-13-2020 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Faith
04-12-2020 9:55 PM


Re: There is still more to learn
Faith writes:

I don't see anything anywhere that justifies your idea that Jesus was in any way concerned with the revolutionary activities around him. He seems to me to be utterly uninvolved with any of that. Doesn't He put down one zealot? Sorry I'm not remembering, I would have to do more research to answer you here and I don't have the patience so I'm afraid I'm more or less tossing this off. Jesus was concerned with the religious leaders, the Pharisees in particular, who had mangled the scriptures to pile on all kinds of traditiona that made life more difficult for people and deprived them of salvation. That's the theme I see running through the New Testament, nothing to do with any militant movements.


Yes He was a concerned about the Pharisees and probably even more the Priests and Levites who pretty much ran the Temple. (Look at the parable of the Good Samaritan. That was only part of His message though.
His political message, was consistent throughout His teaching. The basic message was that the Romans were a problem but the real problem was the fundamental evil behind the Romans. His message was that the weapon against evil is the weapon of love. Thus we have in direct teaching on how to deal with the Romans is: love your enemy, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile etc.
He tells of the destruction that will come in the Gospels if they ignore that teaching which He seems to pretty much assume will be the case. He cries for Jerusalem and says that they have missed the time of Yahweh’s visitation.

In Mark 13 He talks about what will happen as a result of revolution.

Mark13 writes:

1 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!” 2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”


Now we can again see very earthly consequences of a militant revolution.
Then we can look at a couple of verses that talk about Jesus’ disciples will face after Jesus is no longer with them and they will have to carry this message to the people without Him there.
Mark 13 writes:

9 “You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them.


Mark 13 writes:

11 Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.

Mark 13 writes:

14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 18 Pray that this will not take place in winter,


It goes on but that is enough to make my point. This is Jesus saying in language understood by His 1st century Jewish disciples to outline what they will face as a result of rebellion which did take place in the great war of 66-70AD. There is a lot of Jewish apocalyptic language in there as well but here is one interesting one.
Mark 13 writes:

24 “But in those days, following that distress, “ ‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; 25 the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’ 26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.

Here Jesus is going back to the language used in Isaiah 13, particularly verse 10 where Isaiah is describing the fall of Babylon. This clearly about very earthly events, and not about any end of the world scenario. (If was about the end of the world there wouldn’t be any point of telling them to flee to the hills.)
Mark 13 writes:

30 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.


Of course this all came true in the life times of some there in the great war in 70AD. The world is still here.
This same type of teaching can be found in other parts of the Bible. As a prophet and one who preaches God’s truth He is saying that they should abandon the idea of armed revolution as it isn’t of God, and then giving the result of what will happen if they go ahead with it.

The other point that Jesus makes in all of this is after the apocalyptic message in verses 24-25 He says this.

Mark 13 writes:

26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.

This again is in reference to Daniel 7 where Daniels says this.
Daniel 7 writes:

13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.

Jesus is saying that when this happens it can be understood that He is the messiah and that He is with the Father, (the Ancient of Days) and has been given dominion. It in essence vindicates His life, message and death, which of course includes His call to a peaceful, not violent revolution.

Faith writes:

The verse about John the Baptist being compared to a reed hardly seems to lend itself to an image of Tiberius Caesar and the idea just leaves me speechless.

John the Baptist had nothing to do with it. The reed was a symbol of Tiberius Caesar. It was even on a coin minted at the time. It had Tiberius’ head on one side and a woman holding a reed on the other.
Roman coin
Article that talks about the reed as a symbol of Tiberius. Scroll down to the bottom of page 59.
Census, Tribute and Tax Collectors
Here is the Jesus’ reference to it in Luke 7
Luke 7 writes:

24 After John’s messengers left, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swayed by the wind? 25 If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear expensive clothes and indulge in luxury are in palaces. 26 But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 27 This is the one about whom it is written: “ ‘I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’


Jesus is talking about John the Baptist and asking John’s followers what they expected to see. Were they looking for another Caesar like Tiberius, (as represented by his symbol the reed), followed by another and so on, or were they looking for another self-serving king. He is saying what they found was a prophet.
It is hardly earth shattering but it is an interesting item that we would have no idea about without understanding the historical context.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 9:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 4:06 PM GDR has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 90 of 103 (875040)
04-13-2020 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by GDR
04-13-2020 3:01 PM


Re: There is still more to learn
In Mark 13 He talks about what will happen as a result of revolution.

Mark13 writes: 1 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!” 2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

Yes, that's Jesus' famous prophcy of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD, The cause of it seems unimportant. The Roman army coming in to quell the Jewish uprising? From God's perspective the destruction of the temple is judgment since Jesus' death is the final sacrifice which the Jews do not recognize, the sacrifice that ended all the sacrifices in the temple. The worldly cause of it seems truly irrelevant. We can say it's God's judgment though.

You lose me completely with your emphasis on the earthly causes of the sufferings to come, even reducing the Olivet discourse to a mere teaching against revolution. It's always understood to point to signs by which we can recognize when He is to come back to earth in His Second Coming. But all that is eliminated in your thinking.

It goes on but that is enough to make my point. This is Jesus saying in language understood by His 1st century Jewish disciples to outline what they will face as a result of rebellion which did take place in the great war of 66-70AD. There is a lot of Jewish apocalyptic language in there as well ///

Of course He's describing events coming as the Roman army destroys the temple and the city, but it's mind-deadening to reduce Jesus' teaching to that level. And why would He need to use such symbolic language for such a mjndane message? They'd asked Him when He was going to put down the Romans because they had no clue to His true heavenly mission to save the entire world. The disciples really didn't understand a lot of what Jesus said at the time. It took His death and resurrection to make it clear to them. IT was never about the Romans or any earthly events at all except as carriers of the heavenly truth.

You show that Jesus refers back to the Old Testament, such as Daniel for the description of the Son of Man coming in the clouds but you reduce that to a mind-numbingly mundane statement that all it means is that He is the Messiah instead of pointing to His return on the clouds. They still have to experience His crucifixion which is going to panic them, but then they'll see Him alive in His glorified body, and then watch Him be carried up into a cloud. Which you want to turn into something other than an actual cloud.

By reducing it all to its mundane obviousness you of course eliminate all the prophecy the Rapture and the Tribulation rest on. You eliminate all the fantastic imagery of the Book fo Revelation as it describes the Great Tribulation and what it means about all the evil empires of the world finally being subdued by God. You make it all so boringly mundane there's hardly any point in any of it having been written at all. IMHO.

Like your mind-numbing idea about a kind of love that supposedly we can learn to have rather than the expression of the Holy Spirit given only to believers.

I realize I'm going to need to stop here and come back to it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by GDR, posted 04-13-2020 3:01 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by GDR, posted 04-13-2020 6:28 PM Faith has responded
 Message 92 by GDR, posted 04-13-2020 7:25 PM Faith has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020