Posted on 08/14/2004 9:23:47 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
Does that mean I can play the Servetus Card here?
I would agree that a discussion of eschatology is off track for a discussion of deuteronomy.
Simply because Missler is cited in an article about Jesus' frequent use of the book does not mean that every aspect of missler's theology is up for debate with a focus on his eschatology.
If that were logical, then every thread by any author who ALSO happens ever to mention eschatology should turn into a discussion of that person's eschatology.
I'd rather be accused of spiritualizing prophecies (after all Jesus and His disciples did it all the time), than be speculating about this or that current event; will the dome of the rock be destroyed, will the temple be rebuilt, will red heifers bloom in the desert.
The pop prophecy scene does lend itself to lots of rank speculating, e.g., the Left Behind phenomenon.
Only if you get the facts straight.
"Spiritualizing" is speculating.
Not in Jesus' book. And certainly not the way pop prophecy types like to speculate without knowledge.
Apparently, you must wait for anyone to cite anything by or about any person. Then it is appropriate to mention anything else he ever said, did, or wrote about.
Jesus didn't "spiritualize" interpretations....his was the authoritative interpretation.
For example, amill's say that "Satan's binding" is now in a "spiritual sense" and not an actual reality at some point in the future.
Jesus said that a sower went forth to sow and some "seed"....then he explained that the seed is the Word of God.
The first is theological speculation; the second is authoritative explanation.
The word "love" is used 16 times and "fear" is used in 33 times Deuteronomy in the NASB. Frequently when "love" is used, it is used in the context of commanding the Israelites to love the Lord. Almost always when "fear" is used it is used in the context to fear the Lord and obey His commandments.
With all due respect, I'm just at a lost as to how one can interpret Deuteronomy as "full of God's love". I would agree it does speak to His justice and righteousness. But all evidence would support it is more in line with God's admonishment to follow His commandments.
He did both.
For example, amill's say that "Satan's binding" is now in a "spiritual sense" and not an actual reality at some point in the future.
I'm not amil, but allow me a question: do you believe Satan will, in the future, be bound with a literal physical chain and placed in a literal physical pit?
Jesus said that a sower went forth to sow and some "seed"....then he explained that the seed is the Word of God.
That was a parable, not a prophecy. Apples and oranges. You should know better.
The first is theological speculation; the second is authoritative explanation.
The OT prophecy of Jesus' birth said, ""Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel." The fulfillement of this, as recorded in the NT, reads, "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."
Was Jesus "literally" named Immanuel?
Or what about the case of John the Baptist? Jesus spiritualized the prophecy of Elijah "preparing the way for the Lord." He said, "And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come."
And His disciples asked Him, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" And He answered and said, "Elijah is coming and will restore all things; but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist.One might ask, why do some Christians still speculate that a future Elijah must appear?
Since they were actual angels holding the chains, then I'd have to say they were actual chains that angels use....for a prison that angels use. Scratch the chains and you scratch the angels.
apples and oranges
I disagree.
Was Jesus "literally" named Immanuel?
The issue is whether scripture explains itself on this point. Immanuel...God with us.
Elijah....John the Baptist
Again, we have scripture explaining itself. As opposed to the Satan bound passage in which there is no one saying, "and bound means X, Y, and Z...." Spiritualized speculation.
Elijah coming...why?
Jesus said, "Elijah is coming and will restore all things; but I say to you that Elijah already came
Jesus indicates a double fulfillment here. Notice the "will (future)" in comparison to the "came (past.)"
That's why they believe Elijah will yet come.
My guess for you is preterism. I've got some questions non-argumentative about it if you care to go to freepmail.
Or is it Y'hoshua or Yahushua or Yehoshua haMashiach?
You mean he taught you an English transliteration of a Hebrew (or Aramaic) name which is nowhere recorded in the Bible in that form?
It is spelled Yeshua in my copy of the Jewish New Testament by David Stern
I guess Peter and Paul and the rest of the NT writers were wrong to write all that Greek stuff. What was God thinking to have Jesus born in the midst of Roman/Greek culture?
My understanding is the Koine Greek( developed by Alexander the Great ) is extremely precise and
hence why it was breathed by the Ruach haKodesh for our clear understanding.
The communication channels (i.e. roads ) of the Roman Empire provided the rapid spread of the Word of G-d
BTW, how come Paul didn't write the Greek version of "G-d" ("Th--s") or "L-rd" ("K-r--s") all over the place? Not superstitious?
No. Just a mnemonic for myself for reverence and awe for the Holy Name of G-d.
a bondslave to the Christ
chuck
God called His people outof bondage, gave them their land, and made it plain he chose them based on his sovereign love, not their righteousness.
Deuteronomy is full of God's love for his people, the poor, the widow, the alien and the fatherless. It is full of love for a nation that follows His Word faithfully. It is also full of anger and justice against those that violate His Word. That's why I love Deuteronomy.
Don't sneer at the Greek name of Iesus.. It's the name that the New Testament used.
sneer ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snîr)
n.
A scornful facial expression characterized by a slight raising of one corner of the upper lip.
A contemptuous facial expression, sound, or statement.
why do you presume to know my heart and judge me ? I don't sense brotherly love in your judgment.
a bondslave to the Christ
chuck
Excellent points.
Thanks for the bump, Dr E!
I would not recommend titling it this way. The purpose of the law is to convicts us of sin and to point out our need of the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.
In fact, Paul, in the book of Romans says that the letter of the law kills. In fact, I note when I tell my children, don't do this, or don't do that, they will find a way to disobey. Sin permeates mankind so badly, that the presentation of the law almost always has the opposite effect. That presenting the law seems to promote sin. But the application of the law deters it, but does not deliver from sin.
This, IMO, proves John Calvin's doctrine of the Total Depravity of Man; Man will sink to the lowest state of sin allowed.
Therefore, I would recommend a title like "Deuteronomy: The Law that brings Clarity", for Deuteronomy brought out the clarity of our sin and our need for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.
"And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven."
To me - even if scriptually unfamiliar - this is very inclusive within the Laws of Noah.
See also Malachi 1:11.
Best.
I'm partial to Enoch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.