Wordsmith, I'm handing the yellow flag over to you. Feel free to throw it as needed.
I'll freepmail you the code so you can cut-and-paste it if anyone gets out of line. ;o)
Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Perhaps, but there are less/more subjective ways to read it. You can start by reading the Hebrew scriptures as they are, rather than reading them through "Jesus spectacles".
I'm amazed how frequently I've talked with Christians who have little if any knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures. Why even keep them in your bible then? You could believe in Jesus as divine savior simply on the testimony of the apostles and the resurrection, without even bringing the Hebrew scriptures into it.
BigMack
God did create the world, yes.
Isn't that finite stuff coming from an infinite source?
Two different things. Creation is finite coming from infinite. Incarnation is infinite itself becoming finite. This is illogical, which is why it has been called a mystery.
(And, just who is the US that is mentioned? GOD the Father and ??)
The angels. Or the "royal we".
Now let me ask you a question. Is Ezekiel 28 a prophecy? What does it mean to you?
Not all Jews follow the Law, just as not all Christians avoid sin. But observant Jews follow all of the Law that they are able to follow in the absence of the temple. Should they fail to do so, they repent and atone, and are forgiven.
Hmm, now did I miss something, and God really let Abraham go through with it?
The person who sins, he alone shall die. A child shall not share
the burden of a parent’s guilt, nor shall a parent share the
burden of a child’s guilt; the righteousness of the righteous
shall be accounted to him alone, and the wickedness of the wicked
shall be accounted to him alone. (Ezekiel 18:20)
O offspring of Abraham his servant,
sons of Jacob, his chosen ones!
He is YHWH our God;
his judgments are in all the earth.
He is mindful of his covenant for ever,
of the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations,
the covenant which he made with Abraham,
his sworn promise to Isaac,
which he confirmed as a statute to Jacob,
as an everlasting covenant to Israel (1 Chronicles 16:13-17)
Is this man Coniah
A vessel no one wants?
Why are he and his offspring hurled out,
And cast away in a land they knew not?
O land, land, land,
Hear the word of the Lord!
Thus said the Lord:
Record this man as without succession,
One who shall never be found acceptable,
For no man of this offspring shall be accepted
To sit on the throne of David
And to rule again in Judah. (Jeremiah 22:28-30)
Does God lie?
Revisionist history at its finest, RobbyS. Yep, the Jews, who since Abraham had been worshipping the trinitarian God of YHWH, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and who believed that the Son would be born of a virgin and die to save them all from their sins, suddenly and inexplicably rejected Jesus, rejected trinitarianism, converted to an unitarian understanding of God, and kicked the 'real Jews' out of the synagogues. Yeah, that's the ticket.
In this chapter it is the judgment of the prince and king of Tyre and Sidon. The prophecy looks beyond the local ruler to the one who is behind the kingdoms of the world—Satan.
God also says, “I intend to regather Israel.” Satan cannot disturb His plan and program with the children of Israel. Neither can any theologian today dismiss God’s plan to restore Israel to the land in peace. One reason that so many theologians are believed when they say that God is through with the nation Israel is because God’s people are not acquainted with Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the minor prophets. The theme song of these prophets is that God is not through with Israel as a nation. For this reason they should be studied. They throw new light on the Word of God so that it is no longer a jigsaw puzzle, but everything falls into place.
BigMack
I'll freepmail you the code so you can cut-and-paste it if anyone gets out of line. ;o)
So you believe that this is one of those "dual-fulfillment" prophecies. Good.
Now, I'm going to be provocative here, but I have a point to make about interpretation of prophecy.
Is there anyone else who claimed to be God, and who was killed at the hands of foreigners?
Mack
It didn't have as much to do with scholarship as it had to do with the fact that the Franks were not really trying to continue the Empire as it used to be. The Holy Roman Empire was not "Franks playing 'dress up.'" The HRE was not an attempt at a "continuation" of the Old Empire. It was a "REcreation" of the Empire, a new Empire if you will. This new Empire would be something that the old one was not. Whereas the Caesars claimed power by authority of either birth, by being appointed by the previous Emperor, or by right of conquest, the new Emperor claimed power through divine right. And The Holy Roman Emperor held his power in trust from God as the protector of Christendom.
Not clear yet? It will be. (Oh, I'm tempted to leave you hanging until Sunday night! ;o)
Continuing with my deliberately provocative interpretation:
How are you fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn! (Isaiah 14:12)
Who else in scripture is called the "morning star"?
You said in your heart,
`I will ascend to heaven;
above the stars of God
I will set my throne on high...
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will make myself like the Most High.' (Isaiah 14:13-14)
Who says he will sit at the right hand of the Power and come upon the clouds of heaven?
Instead, you are brought down to Sheol,
To the bottom of the Pit (Isaiah 14:15)
Which parallels Ezekiel 28.
Because you have been so haughty and have said, “I am a god”...
Assuredly, thus said the Lord God: Because you have deemed your
mind equal to a god’s,
I swear I will bring against you
Strangers, the most ruthless of nations.
They shall unsheathe their swords
Against your prized shrewdness,
And they shall strike down your splendor.
they shall bring you down to the Pit;
In the heart of the sea you shall die
The death of the slain.
Will you still say, “I am a god”
Before your slayers,
When you are proved a man, not a god,
At the hands of those who strike you down?
By the hands of strangers you shall die
The death of the uncircumcised;
For I have spoken--declares the Lord God. (Ezekiel 28:2,6-10)
Who might the "strangers, the most ruthless of nations have been"? What form of execution did they use? Who was given this form of execution? What did those who struck him down tell him to do, if he was more than a man?
They who behold you stare;
They peer at you closely:
“Is this the man
Who shook the earth,
Who made realms tremble (Isaiah 14:16)
Upon whose death did the earth reportedly tremble?
When you are snuffed out,
I will cover the sky
And darken its stars;
I will cover the sun with clouds
And the moon shall not give its light.
All the lights that shine in the sky
I will darken above you;
And I will bring darkness upon your land. (Ezekiel 32:7-8)
Upon whose death did darkness reportedly cover the land?
But thou art cast forth away from thy grave
like an abhorred offshoot, in the raiment of the slain,
that are thrust through with the sword, that go down to
the pavement of the pit, as a carcass trodden under foot. (Isaiah 14:19)
Whose grave was empty? Whose lineage was from a cursed branch ("abhorred offshoot") of the line of David (See Jeremiah 22:24-30)?
If going beyond the context of the original meaning of the Hebrew scriptures is permissible for passages like Isaiah 53, then this principle must apply across the board. Reading the Hebrew scriptures through the lens of the gospels can indeed be quite enlightening.
You forget: Jesus carried wood as well. ;-)
Intrinsically disordered means what? It means nothing in terms of scripture. And a "disorder" makes it sound like it's merely a 'psychological' issue rather than sin. Which is why I asked for the official position. That's why I asked if it was a Sin or a "less than acceptable lifestyle". The RCC is coming down on the side of the latter as it prefers to say disorder rather than sin. You see, the whole notion is that in one crowd you can almost argue that you are calling it sin, while in another you can almost argue that you are calling it a psychological or genetic disorder. They aren't calling homosexuality sin. They merely say that the 'intrinsic disorder' can cause them to sin. Which is the very thing you've been arguing - that they only sin if they have sex or some such.
How does this matter? If they are tempted means nothing. If they act upon it and pickup the lifestyle again, then we're no longer talking "ex" are we. Are we trying to find some way in which the RCC statement "seems" to have a bearing?
Where do you come from? You aren't calling people to renounce homosexuality, which would take far fewer words and doesn't require the introduction of words such as "intrinsic disorder". It merely requires a statement alongside scripture that Homosexuality is sin that must be repented from - never again to be returned to.
when the Church says the same thing it is making excuses and putting in shades of grey. What do you make of this? Why do you try to find fault where there is none?
Oh brother. Care to tell me how these are the same:
Bible: Homosexuality is a Sin and must be repented of/turned from.
Rcc: to homosexuals "please be chaste".
Wow. Looks a lot alike to me, perhaps if I go snort a line of expensive white stuff it'll seem even more clear?
The Church calls homosexuality a grave, intrinsic disorder. It counsels all to avoid sin, and entertaining thoughts of sin. And it calls homosexuals to a life of chastity and avoiding temptation.
Like I said, it would be easier and much more clear to call it SIN and tell them to repent of it. And the reaction of your side at the outset tells us how the church sees this issue. Your side yelled that the Bible does not call it sin when it most certainly does.
What would you do different?
I'd call it what it is rather than making up phrases which diminish it. You don't call the lifestyle sin. You just say that some things they do is sinful, then you say "be chaste" as if that fixes it. You see, in the wishy-washiness, you lose any authority by confusing the issue. Confusing the issue lets the church make an official statement that allows them to seem to support both sides of the issue at any given time. They'd have done better to either say what the bible says, or shutup. "Avoid all appearance of evil" is not a vague statement from scripture. And thus someone cannot carry on a homosexual lifestyle, stay chaste and yet be in the right. It is sin. Being effeminate, which is covered in Corinthians, also gives no wiggle room. Nor does the phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind" give any wiggle room - it covers what the word effeminate does not. You can't have it both ways. It's either a sin or it isn't. The scripture says it is a sin. The Catholic church says it's an intrinsic disorder that can lead to sin. The two are not equivalent statements. The latter allows you to have homosexual priests because they have to be chaste to begin with.. wow, how comfortabley that now seems to fit. Saying it's sin does not allow for homosexual priests. And a man who doesn't have his own house in order (this includes himself) has no business in the pulpit to begin with according to scripture. Yes, there's that "s" word again. Amazing how all those scriptures work together.
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.