Thanks for your quick and point-by-point response. I respect your gift of time and thought.
My first question is: what kind of church do you go to? (You may want to respond to this by PM because sometimes one's info is better shared where there is no risk of odd points being badly bandied in front of the FR peanut gallery.)
I ask this because I am wondering about your use of "Yeshua" and "Yahweh" --- which are of course correct as to Hebrew usage, often used by Messianic Jews, but generally not in frequent gentile usage. Some people find it an irritant to speak of "denominations," but I'm just looking for some kind of context to understand your point of view.
Second, where do you get this stuff about the "meat sack" not being you? Certainly you are your body. You are an embodied spirit--- or, equally true, an enspirited body. God willed you to be a complex being, consisting of a spiritual soul + a body, and neither is to be denigrated, both are honorable because both are, together, YOU, alive and complete in every detail, as God made you.
Genesis, and Psalms, are full of praises about the goodness of God's Creations, the material world, and his masterwork, the human person, body and soul. Our flesh has enduring value. Our bodies will rise immortal.
Christianity in general holds the body in honor: Ephesians 5:29 says "no one hates his own body, but nourishes and cherishes it".
Our bodies belong to God, are members of Christ (I Co 6:17) and temples of the Spirit, so we must glorify God in our bodies (vs 20).
Saint Paul called the resurrection "the redemption of the body" (Romans 8:23). It is but the completion of Christ's saving work, the perfection of our entire selves, soul and body.
God don't make junk. And frankly, it is demeaning to God and Man to call anybody's body just a meat-sack, whether you are talking about yourself, me, or Christ Our Lord.
Third, a discussion of types and foreshadowings is not a "big word-match game". Go through the 4 Gospels, and all the Epistles particularly Romans and Hebrews, and notice the Apostles' and Evangelists' very frequent reflections on the OT, which comprise multiple examples of word-matches, image-matches, parallels and prefigurings.
These things are neither games nor coincidences. As St. Augustine said: "In the Old Testament the New Testament is concealed; in the New Testament the Old Testament is revealed." His insight is based on Scripture itself:
a wisdom which is hidden,
which God ordained before the world,
unto our glory:
Which none of the princes of this world knew;
for if they had known it,
they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.
(1 Corinthians 2:7-8)
This "connecting the dots" is the very way we look for prefiguring, and by "we" I don't just mean Catholics, I mean Orthodox, Protestant, Evangelical, any sort of Christians who --- like the noble Bereans --- check things out by searching out congruences between the Old Covenant and the New.
I appreciate your perseverance in "reasonable discussion," something which might even make the Religion Mod smile :o)
May God bless you, roamer.
Technically Dutch/Christian Reformed, but due to location, my affiliation has been Presbyterian PCA/OPC... But I am far afield from my brethren.
I ask this because I am wondering about your use of "Yeshua" and "Yahweh" --- which are of course correct as to Hebrew usage, often used by Messianic Jews, but generally not in frequent gentile usage. Some people find it an irritant to speak of "denominations," but I'm just looking for some kind of context to understand your point of view.
I use YHWH because that is his commemorative name, which he chose for himself, and commanded us to use. And it is a wonderful name, if one understands it's primitive meaning. Why would anyone cover it up? How wonderful, how marvelous! It should be SHOUTED in praise! Yet the Jews consider it too holy to be uttered (against the clear directive of the Torah), and the Christians cover it up with 'Lord' (an appellation of Baal, btw)
As for Yeshua, That is his name - No other name requires transliteration - Why transliterate Yeshua?
As to context, I am not a Messianic Jew, but I am probably close to that definition in many aspects.
Second, where do you get this stuff about the "meat sack" not being you? Certainly you are your body. You are an embodied spirit--- or, equally true, an enspirited body. [...] God don't make junk. And frankly, it is demeaning to God and Man to call anybody's body just a meat-sack, whether you are talking about yourself, me, or Christ Our Lord.
It is interesting that you seem to have zoned in on this tidbit, when the analogy at play was actually that of a 'husk and a seed'.
I find little to honor in the flesh - not that I am an ascetic mind you, I do not deny the body... Rather, I put up with it. After all, 'flesh and blood' will not inherit the kingdom.
Saint Paul called the resurrection "the redemption of the body" (Romans 8:23). It is but the completion of Christ's saving work, the perfection of our entire selves, soul and body.
Whoop! There it is!
Third, a discussion of types and foreshadowings is not a "big word-match game".
Oh, but it is.
Go through the 4 Gospels, and all the Epistles particularly Romans and Hebrews, and notice the Apostles' and Evangelists' very frequent reflections on the OT, which comprise multiple examples of word-matches, image-matches, parallels and prefigurings.
True. But you will note that in no wise do their reflections deny the Torah. To use their analogies as license is mistaken.
These things are neither games nor coincidences. As St. Augustine said: "In the Old Testament the New Testament is concealed; in the New Testament the Old Testament is revealed." His insight is based on Scripture itself:
Yeah, thx... I pay little attention to Augustine anymore. Almost precisely because of that statement. While the scripture quoted is true, the division created by Augustine's statement is not. Leaning upon church fathers will have no effect on me - I find the whole compendium to be highly questionable.
This "connecting the dots" is the very way we look for prefiguring, and by "we" I don't just mean Catholics, I mean Orthodox, Protestant, Evangelical, any sort of Christians who --- like the noble Bereans --- check things out by searching out congruences between the Old Covenant and the New.
Therein lies the mistake - The noble Bereans relied upon the Scriptures to prove the words brought to them by Paul... a 'One Way' street, that. They relied upon the Tanakh as proof, particularly the Torah and the Prophets, I would suppose. I have done so too (or I am in the process thereof), and I would recommend that any Christian would do the same. One will be surprised at the amount of leaven added to the lump that will not pass through.
Where I would differ from you is that I know the things said in the beginning must intrinsically hold more weight than the things said later. YHWH is the only contender in the field of those claiming to be God who has not left a mechanism in place in order to change what was said in the first place. And that needfully proves his claim. He does not change. He does not add new things, and there is no novelty beyond what was originally spoken.
It is the novelties seen within, judged not against 'the beginning,' that form the corpus of human traditions added to YHWH's words - Those very same that Yeshua came to rail against. It has ALWAYS been about this... Trying to keep folks from corrupting those things, and in doing so, corrupting the message brought to generations to come...
Knowing that, try to weigh your religion against what was said before, and throw away the leaven. There you can find 'worship in spirit and in truth'. And I guarantee, it will be an eye-opener.