Gone - so yeah, the letter was talking about what is to us, our past
Posted on 07/26/2019 3:04:17 AM PDT by Cronos
I would also suggest this book by a Jewish Talmudic scholar - it’s not directly about the end times but related — “First Century Judaism in Crisis” by Jacob Neusner
You just argued that the criteria is acceptance at an early stage - and that includes not only the dc but also the books of the Ethiopian canon. Why do you reject that basing it on your individual opinion or modern opinion formed in the past 500 years?
Next, the book of Sirach - how does it contradict anything in your opinion?
Sirach 16:12 is quoted in 1 Peter 1:17 for instance.
Why is this book contradictory in your opinion?
Next - the Jewish rejection post-dates Christianity by Rabbi Akiba.
Rabbi Akiba is perhaps best known in history as the rabbi who endorsed a false messiah. According to Akiba, the messiah promised in Numbers 24:7 who would defeat the Romans, rebuild the Temple and rule as the messianic king was personified in a man named Simon bar Kokhba. Akiba’s endorsement of bar Kokhba changed the complexion of the Second Jewish Revolt (AD 132-135), turning it from a popular uprising into a messianic movement.
Akiba endorsed the redefinition of Judaism along non-sacrificial lines, at least until the Temple was restored. To do so, Akiba used a creative style of biblical interpretation to read into the Hebrew text whatever he needed. The only problem was that the Jews never had a single normative biblical text. Therefore, the first order of business was to adopt single text for the Rabbinical Bible. It is here that Rabbi Akiba inadvertently reveals something about Deuterocanon.
In a work called Tosefta Yadayim, 2:13, Akiba says: “The Gospels and heretical books do not defile the hands. The books of Ben Sira and all other books written from then on, do not defile the hands.
”The phrase “do not defile the hands” refers to a non-sacred text. Therefore, Akiba is stating that the Christian Scriptures are not sacred — no surprise there — and the “books of ben Sira and all other books written from then on” are not sacred. The book of Sirach is the oldest book of the Deuterocanon. Therefore, Akiba’s decree rejects the whole of the Deuterocanon as inspired Scripture.
Inadvertently, though, what Akiba’s statement does show is that a sizeable number of Jewish Christians did accept the Deuterocanon as Scripture in Akiba’s day (i.e. before AD 132), in order for the noted rabbi to associate it with the Christian Scriptures. He must also have believed there was the potential for non-Christian Jews to have accepted it as sacred Scripture; otherwise, there would be no need for his ruling.
you see this — the early Christians considered Sirach and others as scripture
In Jesus’ time, the Samaritans and Sadducees accepted the law but rejected the prophets and writings. The Pharisees accepted all three. Other Jews used a Greek version (the Septuagint) that included the seven disputed books, known as the deuterocanonicals. Still other Jews used a version of the canon that is reflected in the Septaguint and included versions of the seven books in question in their original Hebrew or Aramaic.
At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).
So, your argument fails
Yup, seriously — and why don’t you take them as Divinely inspired when it was taken as so by early Christians - and that is what you said is a criteria.
The plagues are exactly what happened in AD 70, rabban MHG
Gone - so yeah, the letter was talking about what is to us, our past
I didn’t think so.
My message was for you and others on the thread also.
Sometimes things can amplify quickly.
Thank you for your reply.
Don't take this mark of the beast - oh wait, if you did take Nero (the 6-6-6) coin as bribery in the years before 70 AD you would be taking the mark of the beast
There is no "rapture' - the events of the great tribulation have happened - and your calculation of 40 years after the founding of Israel or 40 years after the reunion of Jerusalem, have failed.
The errors are compounded that the millenium is mentioned only once in the Bible in the symbolic book , the Apocalypse. Its mention immediately follows a description of "the great supper of God", in which "the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great" is eaten" (Apoc. 19:18)
You place too much emphasis on a literal interpretation of what is figurative.
The second problem of premillenialism is that you claim it must be a corporeal reign of Christ here on earth - this completely misunderstands the message of Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel.
Yada yada yada. LOL, you are obsessed to contradict The Word of God. It appears you have convinced yourself of your lofty ‘truths’, but I will just continue to ignore your devilish effrots. No need to respond to specific foolishness since you will continue to expose more of your ... spittlegeist.
Just as with most of your declarations, I can't see any rationale - whatsoever to your remarks.
Sirach 16:12 (GNT) "His punishment is as severe as his mercy is great. He judges people by what they have done."
1 Peter 1:17 (ESV) "And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one's deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile,"
The bold highlights are mine. They help you find the intersection of the two verses.
Are you kidding yourself?
The Word of God opposes your concept of “left behind rapture”
Premillenialism is contrary to the Bible. Firstly the rapturists put a literal spin on a book filled with allegories of the heavenly kingdom.
Secondly the kingdom of God is spiritual not physical.
Daniel refers to the 600 years following his time and he clearly mentions the destruction of the Temple.
The book of the Apocalypse refers to the destruction of the Temple and how Christ created His Kingdom here - Christianity. Christianity is birthed from mother Zion as we see in the allegory of the woman giving birth and the dragon waiting and being thwarted.
• And if you call on him as Father
Jer. 3:19; "I said, How I would set you among my sons, and give you a pleasant land, a heritage most beautiful of all nations. And I thought you would call me, My Father, and would not turn from following me."
Mal. 1:6; A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the Lord of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. But you say, ‘How have we despised your name?’
Mal. 1:6; A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the Lord of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. But you say, ‘How have we despised your name?’
2 Cor. 6:18; and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.
[Matt. 6:9] Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.
"if ye call on..."--that is, "seeing that ye call on," for all the regenerate pray as children of God, "Our Father who art in heaven" (Mt 6:9; Lu 11:2). "if you call on him as Father" - This is another way of saying, “if you are a Christian.” The believer who knows God and that he judges the works of all his children fairly, will respect God and his evaluation of his life, and long to honor his heavenly Father.
• who judges impartially
"Father who judges impartially" may refer only to the final judgment, when believers will be judged according to their deeds (cf. Rom. 2:6, 16; 2 Cor. 5:10). More likely, Peter has in mind both this present life and the last day as well. God is not only the Father of his people but also their judge.
"If ye call on the Father -- judgeth" - More correctly, Rev., If ye call on him as Father; the point being that God is to be invoked, not only as Father, but as Judge. James 2:1; My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. "impartially"- See Ac 10:34 and note. foreigners. See note on v. 1. reverent fear. Not terror, but wholesome reverence and respect for God, which is the basis for all godly living (cf. Pr 1:7 and note).
“Without respect of persons” means without partiality. God judges every man’s work impartially. God doesn’t have little pets.
Without respect of persons haproso. Here only. Peter, however, uses pole mpte , a respecter of persons, which whole passage should be compared with this. Paul and James also use the kindred word prosopole psia, respect of persons
See Romans 2:11; James 2:1. James has the verb proso pole mpteo ;, to have respect of persons.
Acts 10:34; So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.
The constituents of the compound word, proso pon, the countenance, and lambano, to receive, are found in Galatians 2:6; and the word is the Old-Testament formula to accept or to raise the face of another; opposed to making the countenance fall (Job 29:24; Genesis 4:5). Hence, to receive kindly, or look favorably upon one (Genesis 19:21; 32:20, etc.). In the Old Testament it is, as Bishop Lightfoot observes, "a neutral expression involving no subsidiary notion of partiality, and is much oftener found in a good than in a bad sense. When it becomes an independent Greek phrase, however, the bad sense attaches to it, owing to the secondary meaning of proso pon, a mask; so that proso pon lambanein signifies to regard the external circumstances of a man, his rank, wealth, etc., as opposed to his real, intrinsic character."
• according to each one's deeds,
God is going to judge the work of every Christian fairly. This has nothing to do with your salvation; Ps. 62:12; and that to you, O Lord, belongs steadfast love. For you will render to a man according to his work.
• conduct yourselves with fear
Fear is not a paralyzing terror but a fear of God's discipline and fatherly displeasure; it is a reverence and awe that should characterize the lives of believers during their exile (cf. 1 Pet. 1:1) on this earth.
it has everything to do with the kind of life you are living down here on this earth. The fact that God is going to judge us ought to cause us to become very sober minded and to give a little more attention to the life that we are living. My friend, let’s make sure that we are not superficial. Are you trying to keep a smile on your face and radiate happiness and sunshine everywhere you go? The gospel does not sprinkle rosewater on a bunch of dead weeds.
• throughout the time of your exile,
tn Grk "the time of your sojourn," picturing the Christian's life in this world as a temporary stay in a foreign country (cf. 1:1). Sojourning paroikias. Compare sojourners, ver. 1.
.
As always, "Scripture supports Scripture" Heretical notions can be identified and ignored. In this case, it's easy to do.
Goodbye.
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.