Posted on 12/10/2010 9:41:02 AM PST by topcat54
Why is there no need for a Jewish Temple to replace the Muslim Dome-of-the-Rock?
Well, first of all, the Dome is very pretty, and would make a nice Church some day.
But secondly, the idea that a Jewish Temple must one day (soon) stand in the place of the Muslim Dome of the Rock is a pure superstition. It is founded upon a tradition of the Jewsinfused with some imaginationand not upon any command of Gods Word.
With all of the talk and Bible study concerning the Jewish Temple Mount, you would expect the Bible to have much to say about that particular Mount. But most Christiansespecially the ones who lecture us most about a coming rebuilt Templewould certainly be surprised by how little the Bible actually says about that location. Most of what is assured to us todayand what is the subject of geopolitical tension and theological fightingis founded upon little more than assumptions.
We are told in 2 Chronicles 3:1 that Solomon built the Temple on Mount Moriah, and that this was the location of Ornans threshingfloor which David purchased. Today archeological evidence places the site of the Second Temple (Herods Temple, the one which stood when Jesus walked the earth) where the golden-domed Mosque now stands. But surprisingly, there is no archaeological proof that the first Temple, Solomons Temple, stood on that same location, although there is no evidence of it being anywhere else, either. So, we are left with no proofbiblical or historicalthat the current Temple Mount is in the same place as Ornans threshingfloor. But this is not the main point of the story.
Before we go further, we should remember that there are actually a series of mountains associated with the city of Jerusalem: Mounts Moriah, Zion, Olives, and a few others that have little or no biblical significance of which we can tell. Mt. Zion is the highest peak, and stands almost half a mile west of the Temple Mount itself, which is Mt. Moriah. Between the two is a considerable valley. Even farther east of the Temple Mount, across an even deeper valley, rises the Mount of Olives which is also higher than Mt. Moriah. From this peak, Jesus and His disciples looked westward upon the Temple, and Jesus declared its pending destruction (Matt. 24, Mark 13, Luke 21). A picture from the Mount of Olives today reveals the Mosque to the west where the Temple once was, and the clearly much higher ridge of Mt. Zion farther in the western background. Heres a simple cross-section on Wikipedia illustrating the relationship in size and location of Mt. Zion (left) and the Temple Mount, Moriah.
The Biblical Data
On what grounds was the Temple ever built on Mt. Moriah to begin with?
For the location of the Temple, the Bible tells us Solomon chose Mt. Moriah, where the Lord had appeared to David his father, at the place that David had appointed, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite (2 Chron 3:1 ESV). Appointed is more properly prepared, as the KJV and NAS have it. David not only appointed this place, but actively established, made ready, or set up the site. And why did David establish this as a site for a permanent Temple? Did he have a command from God to do so?
Not really. The story of David and Ornan is told a few chapters earlier in 1 Chronicles 21. God had sent a plague upon the people of Israel as punishment for David numbering the people (1 Chron. 21:114). Via the Angel of the Lord, the plague killed 70,000 men. When the Angel reached Jerusalem, God stopped short of destroying the city, and the Angel was stopped at the point of Ornans threshingfloor.
Then God sent the prophet Gad to instruct David to go to Ornans threshingfloor and set up an altar in that place. This would have been a simple altar of uncut stones and without steps, according to Gods law (Ex. 20:2426). David obeyed. The altar was eventually set up, David offered sacrifices and prayers to God, and God answered by fire from heaven upon the altar. All said and done, the Angel of the Lord was commanded to sheathe his sword, officially ending the plague upon Israel.
It is important to note all that was required of David, and the purpose for it. David was only required by God to build an altar, not even necessarily to sacrifice on it. And the purpose of the altar was clearly in response to the presence of Gods wrath via the Angel of the Lord and the temporary instance of the plague. There is no indication anywhere that God intended this to be a permanent location, and there certainly is no requirement, commandment, or statute that it should be so.
Ornan, however, was actually willing to donate the whole property to the King for this purpose. David insisted on paying for it. The transaction went down. Therefore, the property legally belonged to David. Since God never indicated any need to dedicate the property to the Lord or a Temple or Priesthood, then we can only assume that for the rest of Davids life, the property legally belonged to the King.
Consequently, it was purely Davids decisionnot Gods commandthat the Temple be built at the site of Ornans (Araunah in 2 Sam. 24) threshingfloor.
But David himself was not allowed to build a house for God; God forbid him to do so because he had been a man of bloodshed and war (1 Chron. 22:8). Rather, Davids future son would build the house, and his name shall be Solomon (1 Chron. 22:9). He would be a man of rest.
As a side note, we could easily assume that God referred to Davids then immediate son Solomon. But remember, when that Solomon was born, it was David who named him Solomon; but God sent the prophet Nathan to give the child a different God-given name, Jedidiah (2 Sam. 12:2425). God did not see Davids Solomon as Solomon, but Jedidiah. Moreover, Davids words to Solomon indicate that the son who would build the Temple and bring peace was yet to be born: Behold, a son shall be born to you who shall be a man of rest (1 Chron. 22:9). Obviously, as David spoke, his Solomon was already born, alive and listening to his father speak. We are left to conclude that the ultimate Solomonpeaceable and perfectwhich God promised David was Jesus. In the mean time, Solomon would provide a type of that yet-to-come True Solomon.
When Solomon later built a house to the Lord, he followed through with what his father had already established and prepared (2 Chron. 3:1). Like his father, Solomon had no explicit direction or command from God where to put the Temple, but only directions to build it and how. In addition to having bought the real estate and established it as the site, David also prepared raw materials, construction supplies, organized labor, and secured government clearances, support, and aid for the construction project he put before his son (1 Chron. 22:25, 1419).
The whole project, from conception to completion, was Davids design. The only exception was the pattern for the Temple and its instruments: these God supplied to David (1 Chron. 28:1119). But of the location of the Temple, God commanded nothing. It was Davids decision.
David decided this location not because he had a command from God or directions from the prophet, but because he was afraid of the Angel of the Lord that had been stationed at Ornans threshingfloor. Even though God had accepted Davids sacrifices, the Angel of the Lord had sheathed His sword, and the plague and threat were ended, David nevertheless was afraid.
Meanwhile, the actual priesthood, the tabernacle, and the ark of the covenant were all fifteen miles away in Gibeon (1 Chron. 21:29; 16:3743). But, David could not go before it to inquire of God, for he was afraid of the sword of the angel of the Lord (1 Chron. 21:30). Yet in the very next verse (22:1), we find David declaring of Ornans threshingfloor, Here shall be the house of the Lord God and here the altar of burnt offering for Israel.
So not only did David not have a command from God where to build, but he never even asked God. Afraid to leave the place he was at, he just declared it, unilaterally, the site of Gods House.
Thus the location of Solomons Temple was the result of Davids momentary weakness and self-interested convenience.
Zion or Moriah?
Many people have argued that the site on Mt. Moriah is significant for the Temple because it is the same spot where Abraham bound Isaac as a sacrifice, and where God provided the substitute. Thus Davids altar was upon the same spot as Abrahams altar, and thus the Temple belongs there. The proof of this is supposed to be in Genesis 22:2, where God tells Abraham, Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you. But notice here God does not designate Mount Moriah as is designated in 2 Chronicles 3:1. Here it only says the land of Moriah, which is a general area. Remember that this area, assuming it is the Jerusalem area, has several mountains. In this general area, God promises to reveal to Abraham one of the mountains on which to sacrifice. In the rest of the story in Genesis 22, we are never told exactly which one of the mountains God chose. Anyone arguing that it must be Mount Moriah is trying to get away with an argument from silencea pure assumption unwarranted by the Scripture.
But there is good reason for this silence. God does not want any particular geographic location to become an idol for His people. He wants us to be free from all idolatry, including inordinate attachments to the rituals and rudiments he once commanded. At other times, God has hidden certain things in order to prevent idolatry. He would not allow the whereabouts of Moses body to be known after his death (Deut. 34:56). Similarly, He allowed the ark of the covenant to be lost (contemporary claims notwithstanding), as the Jews had allowed the mere presence of it along with the Temple rituals to become idolatry. Even after the Solomonic Temple was destroyed and the Second Temple rebuilt, the ark was never restored. Thus the writer of Hebrews could not speak of its existence (Heb. 9:5). Likewise, nowhere does Scripture specifically prescribe the location of the alleged Temple Mount. The word Moriah only appears in Scripture in two places (Gen. 22:2 and 2 Chron. 3:1), and Mount Moriah only the one time, and this latter was Davids choice, not Gods.
Scripture does say where God has chosen to dwell forever, and it is, in fact, in Jerusalem. Psalm 132:1314 says it plainly: For the Lord has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his dwelling place: this is my resting place forever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it. But this does not require a Jewish Temple to be rebuilt at all, let alone on Mt. Moriah. Even if we presumed to interpret this literally (as we shall see, we should not), and presumed that Gods dwelling place indicates a literal Temple, then we should more properly desire a Temple upon the higher peak of Mt. Zion rather than Moriah; for the text says, the Lord has chosen Zion. Now, many times, especially in the Psalms, Scripture uses Zion to designate the entire city of Jerusalem. But this would rather expand the available real estate rather than narrow it to the so-called Temple Mount: we should then be open to place a Temple anywhere in Jerusalem.
I will summarize all I have said to this point: Scripture nowhere designates the so-called Temple Mount as a necessary place for a Jewish Temple. It never did, God never said it, God never required it, and He does not require it now or anytime in the future.
A Re-Built Temple?
But many Christians today, swayed by the old dispensational school of theology, believe strongly that the exact location of the Temple Mount, Mt. Moriah, must be the location of a future Jewish Temple. And, of course, the problem is that large golden-domed Al Sakhra Mosque (and actually a second mosque as well, the Al Aqsa, sits within the southern wall of the Temple Mount) sits on that location. Supporters of a rebuilt Temple, therefore, wish for the day that Mosque will be removed. For example, one dispensationalist woman in the video Waiting for Armageddon (see at 1:18ff) is so committed to the claims of that system that she punctuates her tour of the Temple Mount with the exclamation: Theres no place for that Mosque. It has to be removed. In the same production, tour guide and dispensational scholar H. Wayne House imposes his belief in a rebuilt Temple via Photoshop: he displays a picture of the tour group with Temple Mount in the background, but has digitally cut out the Dome-of-the-Rock, and spliced in a rendering of the Jewish Temple. Voila! A digitally-answered prayer for a future re-built Jewish Temple on Mt. Moriah.
This prayer bears two parts: 1) that a future Temple must be built, and 2) that it must be built exactly where the Dome sits now.
The first claim often makes reference to Revelation 11:12. There John is told to measure the temple of God. Dispensationalists assume that this must refer to a Temple that will be built in the future. One reason for this is due to their belief that Revelation was not written until AD 90, when no Jewish Temple was left standing. But this assumption rests on highly fragile footing, surprising considering that so many people are ready to stake an international holocaust on it. But the work of Kenneth Gentry and others on the dating of Revelation has left this late date view severely crippled. His book Before Jerusalem Fell has established for decades now that Revelation was much more likely written before AD 70. David Chiltons Days of Vengeance shows why such a dating allows the book to make much more sense: it mostly pertained to localized events of that time and place. And with an early date of AD 66 or 68 or so, it makes sense for John to be told to measure the temple, because the Jerusalem Temple was still standing.
Nevertheless, even if we granted that Revelation 11 speaks of a future Temple, it says absolutely nothing about where that Temple must be located. Silence. Anyone who assumes it must be Mt. Moriah, in the place of the Dome-of-the-Rock, is adding to Scripture here in a big way.
Why Not Start Tomorrow?
So we are absent anyand I mean anyScripture mandate about where a Temple should have been, or should be located. This is no big deal to a preterist, of course, since he or she would not expect a rebuilt Temple anyway. But it should be quite freeing to a Zionist or a dispensationalist. For these people now no longer have to worry about replacing the Dome-of-the-Rock (perhaps, for my service in providing this illumination, they may desire to send a donation to American Vision). Since the whole complex of mountains called Zion is at their disposal, they could biblically, prophetically, start building a Temple tomorrow, or even today.
But, if the Jews want that Mount so badly as to insist on it, they should do what David did: pay fair market value. And if the Muslims dont want to sell at any price, tough lamb chops. Go somewhere else.
Israel has control over all of Mt. Zion except the Mosque-domed Temple Mount. But Israel doesnt need this, biblically speaking. So, I have a proposition: every Zionist, Orthodox Jew, Dispensationalist, and Premillennialist who believes there must be a rebuilt Temple ought immediately to start a foundation and a movement to build a Temple anywhere in Jerusalem that Israel already controls. This will hasten the last days and the coming of Jesus Himself!
Of course, failure to do this will be a tacit admission that all of these parties are more interested in bashing Muslims than advancing their own religion. Thus, their motivation to capture the Temple Mount when they dont really need it will be revealed as pure envy.
Such a motivation may be masked by arguments about the special significance of the actual rock beneath that Domebeing the rock on which Abraham meant to sacrifice Isaac, or David stood, etc.but we have already seen how none of these arguments has merit. To insist on these positions is to declare oneself in the service of the traditions of men, or ancient Jewish superstitions. Ironically, to do this puts the Christian or Jew on no better grounds than the Muslims who occupy that rock now, clinging to the superstition that Mohammed ascended to heaven from than spot.
Why trade one superstition for another? Especially with the risk of bloodshed and war, which cost David the privilege of building a Temple to begin with?
Conclusion
There is no biblical reason that any Temple should ever stand (or ever should have stood) upon Mt. Moriah. If anything, it should be upon Mt. Zion, taken either as the particular peak named Ziona half-mile West of Mt. Moriahor as anywhere in the general area of Jerusalem. To insist on anything more specific is to trade the dictates of Scripture for superstition.
I say let the Dome-of-the-Rock stand. In fact, I will go so far as to say that it would be non-Christian and unbiblical to call for its replacement by a Jewish Temple. Rather, in due time, Christ reigning from his current throne will spread the Gospel and subdue all His enemieseven the Muslim and Jewish enemies. He will bring them into the ChurchHis bodythe only True Temple and Dwelling Place of God. Even Zion has been spiritualized, if you willrevealed to be fulfilled in the person of the Ascended Christ: But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant (Heb. 12:2224). (Was the writer of Hebrews really guilty of spiritualizing the text?!)
What is Zion but the Spirit-Indwelt people of God? What is the Temple except these same Indwelt people of God? To trade this truth for any stack of concrete blocks on any hill is to trample the Son of God underfoot and slap God in the face.
Someday, even Muslims and Jews will be converted and understand this truth. Some dispensationalists may see it, too. When that day comes, that beautiful golden-domed Mosque may just make a very pretty church.
Before then, I would hate to see it spoiled with the worthless blood of bulls and goats, and the idolatrous incantations of would be Sadducees (Heb. 9).
“I wont even address it.”
There’s a surprise. Just admit that you can’t.
Like tearing down Saint Paul’s Cathedral to erect Stonehenge.
Islam may have come after Christianity but it is so less civilized and so much more savage—heck,even more primitive and barbaric than the Druids of Stonehenge.
That's only a problem for dispensational literalists. I take the NT authors as divinely inspired in the interpretation of the OT prophecies.
“The bitterness you seem to have deep in your soul seems to scream from most of your posts. I have no way of knowing the source but peace and love certainly are not flowing from the words you type.”
Unfortunately, I discern the same element at work in your nice little “dearly beloved”isms.
Please dont send me pings again. Ill ask once then I will report.
Bogus claim? Hardly.
From Wiki:
(After Torah)Further books were translated over the next two centuries. It is not altogether clear which was translated when, or where; some may even have been translated twice, into different versions, and then revised.[9] The quality and style of the different translators also varied considerably from book to book, from the literal to paraphrasing to interpretative. According to one assessment "the Pentateuch is reasonably well translated, but the rest of the books, especially the poetical books, are often very poorly done and even contain sheer absurdities".[10]
Modern scholarship holds that the LXX was written during the 3rd through 1st centuries BCE. But nearly all attempts at dating specific books, with the exception of the Pentateuch (early- to mid-3rd century BCE), are tentative and without consensus.[4]
The oldest manuscripts of the LXX include 2nd century BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BCE fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943). Relatively complete manuscripts of the LXX postdate the Hexaplar rescension and include the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus of the 4th century and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century.
The Prophets and Writings (Nevi'im and Ketuvi'im) were translated by anonymous authors at some later date. Over time the Septuagint became corrupt and Jews stopped using Greek translations. Origen, an early church father (died 232 CE) wrote:
"We are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery.".[18]
So, your contention that the pre-christian Septuagint validates your view is flawed. There are no pre-christian septuagints, only manuscripts from the Christian era. The Jews stopped using the LXX because it did not agree with the Hebrew texts. So either the Christian era versions were changed or the "original" pre-christian documents were flawed and not discovered as such by the Rabbi's until the 1st or 2nd century CE. So, since only existing manuscripts are of Christian origin, my claim stands.
John is not an inspired book.
John 1: 19 Now this was Johns testimony when the Jewish leaders[c] in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. 20 He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, I am not the Messiah. 21 They asked him, Then who are you? Are you Elijah? He said, I am not. Are you the Prophet? He answered, No.24 Now the Pharisees who had been sent 25 questioned him, Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?
Jesus says John the baptist IS Elijah. John has JTB denying he is.
John has Jesus lying to the high priest.
John 18: 20 I have spoken openly to the world, Jesus replied. I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.
Jesus most certainly did teach in secret and told those around NOT to tell anyone. He also taught in many places other than Synagogue or Temple.
It is not inspired.
LOL... the mod actually deleted post #207 which is Scripture. Guess that’s why he or she is the “Religious Moderator” and not the “Biblical Expositor”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUwO1i4ImPA
I would push back and say that some of them are cowards. They dont go far enough. Some of them are people pleasers and theyre worried about their ratings and approval as opposed to the truth.
“The Bible has some very strong language. The opening of Galatians where he [Paul] tells a bunch of guys who are into circumcision to go all the way and emasculate themselves, probably not something that youre going to have on the flannel-graph for the children in the Sunday school. Ezekiel telling the Israelites that they are whoring after certain people and gods because of the size of their genitalia and the experiences they enjoy is very strong language. When Isaiah says that a righteousness is like bloody tampons and Paul says its like a steaming pile that a dog leaves in the yard, the Bible is using some very strong language.
The question is, is that okay? Well, all Scripture is God-breathed, and if thats how God speaks thats how we should speak.”
...
There is a strong drift toward the hard theological left. some emergent types want to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelations, Jesus is a prize fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up. I fear some are becoming more cultural than christian, and without a big Jesus who has authority and hates sin as revealed in the bible, we will have less and less Christians, and more and more confused, spiritually self-righteous blogger critics of Christianity.
Of course it is, along with the other 26 NT books. Basic Christian theology 101.
2. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these:Of the Old Testament:
Genesis II Chronicles Daniel
Exodus Ezra Hosea
Leviticus Nehemiah Joel
Numbers Esther Amos
Deuteronomy Job Obadiah
Joshua Psalms Jonah
Judges Proverbs Micah
Ruth Ecclesiastes Nahum
I Samuel The Song of Songs Habakkuk
II Samuel Isaiah Zephaniah
I Kings Jeremiah Haggai
II Kings Lamentations Zechariah
I Chronicles Ezekiel MalachiOf the New Testament:
The Gospels Galatians The Epistle
according to Ephesians of James
Matthew Philippians The first and
Mark Colossians second Epistles
Luke Thessalonians I of Peter
John Thessalonians II The first, second,
The Acts of the to Timothy I and third Epistles
Apostles to Timothy II of John
Paul's Epistles to Titus The Epistle
to the Romans to Philemon of Jude
Corinthians I The Epistle to The Revelation
Corinthians II the Hebrews of JohnAll which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.
Jesus says John the baptist IS Elijah. John has JTB denying he is.
Oh, how silly. Other portions explain what going on. Hint: Jesus did not teach reincarnation.
Jesus most certainly did teach in secret and told those around NOT to tell anyone. He also taught in many places other than Synagogue or Temple.
Teaching in private and teaching in secret are two different things. Jesus often did the former, but none of his teaching were secret.
Jesus also speaks to you and your ilk:
And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.' "But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it. (Matt. 13)
You can obfuscate, but let's not forget the original bogus claim:
The Jewish Rabbis of the septuagint only translated the Torah. The 5 books of Moses. There rest of the Tanakh, or OT was done by Christian translators.
Are you ready to recant?
Romans 10
1 Brothers and sisters, my hearts desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to Gods righteousness. 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
5 Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: The person who does these things will live by them.[a] 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: Do not say in your heart, Who will ascend into heaven?[b] (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or Who will descend into the deep?[c] (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,[d] that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.[e] 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentilethe same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.[f]
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news![g]
16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed our message?[h] 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. 18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:
Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.[i]
19 Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says,
I will make you envious by those who are not a nation;
I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.[j]
20 And Isaiah boldly says,
I was found by those who did not seek me;
I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.[k]
21 But concerning Israel he says,
All day long I have held out my hands
to a disobedient and obstinate people.[l]
Footnotes:
Romans 10:5 Lev. 18:5
Romans 10:6 Deut. 30:12
Romans 10:7 Deut. 30:13
Romans 10:8 Deut. 30:14
Romans 10:11 Isaiah 28:16 (see Septuagint)
Romans 10:13 Joel 2:32
Romans 10:15 Isaiah 52:7
Romans 10:16 Isaiah 53:1
Romans 10:18 Psalm 19:4
Romans 10:19 Deut. 32:21
Romans 10:20 Isaiah 65:1
Romans 10:21 Isaiah 65:2
I didn’t see #202 BTW. Someone once shared on their profile a way of seeing deleted posts but I never tried it. Does anyone know how you do that?
Are you joking? You havent proved a thing. Christian translators DID make Origens copy and at least three other versions of LXX manuscripts. They may have got their earlier copies from that which was translated from 300 to 130 BCE but we have NO IDEA who translated those or what they said. We have anecdotal evidence evidence that the Torah was good and the rest was not that good. The LXX of today is from the Christian era by Christian writers.
No. None of the Greek Testament is inspired.
Oh, how silly. Other portions explain what going on. Hint: Jesus did not teach reincarnation.
Silly? That is a contradiction that can not be explained away. You can spin but it is just spin. Jesus said John the Baptist is Elijah. Elijah must come first. Malachi 4: 5 See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents;
Well he didnt restore children to parents Jesus even said:
Luke 12:53"They will be divided, (A)father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." Teaching in private and teaching in secret are two different things. Jesus often did the former, but none of his teaching were secret.
Ridiculous! When you teach someone something and then tell them to keep it a secret....ITS A SECRET. They were told to tell no one! That is a secret.
Jesus also speaks to you and your ilk:
Uh Huh....Well, rahter than picking a scripture that is ad hominem, I prefer G-ds word that refutes your heresy:
Deut 4 15 You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like man....
You insist on giving G-d a form.
Deut 4: 2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you. Deut 12:31 You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods(Human sacrifice like Jesus). 32 See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.
You do add and take away from the commands.
Isaiah 40:18To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? 46:5 With whom will you compare me or count me equal? To whom will you liken me that we may be compared?
You try to make G-d equal and compare Him with a god-man Jesus. When G-d says...DONT compare me to ANYTHING.
Jesus fulfilled none of the Messianic prophecies that are exhaustive and exclusive. Hence the need for a second coming. No one can be crowned King Mashiach unless he has fulfilled ALL OF THE Prophecies. ALL. He will not be a god. He will not be a human sacrifice. He will not be a human vicarious atonement. He will live a normal human life.
I am not blind or deaf. Why the second coming? Because he FAILED.
Are you sure the correct word is 'parents'? Why use parents when the word used is 'fathers'?
You are right....I just happened to be using the new international version bible online. I checked the KJV, NASB and the Hebrew. It is Fathers. Thanks!
OF COURSE prophecy is chock full of allegory, of types, of shadows.
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.