Posted on 10/15/2011 9:30:31 AM PDT by marbren
Luke 15:11-32
(KJV)
11And he said, A certain man had two sons:
12And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
13And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
14And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.
15And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
16And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
17And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
18I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
In context, the younger son is Isra’el, the older is Judah...
Jeremiah 31:31
That is exactly the opposite of how the NT is read and understood. The NT interprets the OT, not the OT unlocking the NT as you have it. You might want to check out how our LORD and ALL of the Apostles seemed to apply the "mystery revealed" through the ministry of Jesus Christ and the Paraclete (1 Cor 2:14) to the OT passages cracking the code and showing how they all spoke of the Messiah.
So, you reject the bodily assumption of Mary, then?
no.
if you do, please direct me to where here grave is.
Far be it from ME to judge; but; this CLOSES the subject permanently as far as I’m concerned. I have no interest in debating with a bunch of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which I’m suspecting is what has been going on. Go rag on someone else. I’m not buying what you’re selling! Goodbye!
Well, to me it would appear that you actually don’t agree, then, with the staement you wrote that compelled me to initially respond on this thread, that all were subject to sin and death, other than Jesus Christ.
LOL, i have been called a lot of things in my life, but a Jehovah Witness is not one of them!!
i am not suprised that you don’t understand based on past threads.
you didn’t answer my question, you do agree Mary was blessed?
Paul tells us in Romans who a true Jew is and Galatians 6 that the Church is the Israel of God.
Slight problem with going to Galatians 6:16. EVERYONE but the Futurist knows that the "Israel of God" is to be distinguished from "Israel of the Flesh" (Romans 2:29; 4:12; 9:6,7). If the Futurists were to ever concede that there was a distinction, then they wouldn't be Dispensationalists. Being a Dispy is far more important than being faithful to the Scriptures.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
amen. please accept my apology for not pinging you like i did lee n. field, i know you very good at defending orthodoxy against the dispensationalist heresy.
I agree to the extent that can be supported via scripture, and disagree with those beliefs and doctrines that depart from scripture, oLofob. There have been many convoluted attempts to intellectualize just how Jesus Christ was born sinless of a virgin, and from just whence the sin nature arises. I see no justification for elevating Mary to a status approaching that of a demigoddess to accomodate this intellectualization. Suffice it to say that it was as it is written. Beyond that is at best speculation.
well, when someone tells me i don’t agree with my own statement, that’s evidence they don’t understand my statement. but you make the rules, so i will abide by them.
i am happy to agree with you, we shouldn’t elevate Mary to a status approaching demigoddess. She is a created human being just like you and me, except God chose her to be the vehicle where Jesus would derive His humanity and give birth to our Savior.
Oh, really now. You don’t think that Jesus Christ understood dispensations and rightly dividing God’s word of truth?
Perhaps you can be so kind as to give us any example in Scripture that supports your idea that "Jesus Christ understood Dispensations".
Is it in the Parables of the Tares and the Wheat? (Mt 13:24-30)?
Let me guess, in your Bible it reads:
"Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, 'First lets secretly go gather the wheat to the barn for seven years and then during that time infect the fields with droughts, plagues, locusts, earthquakes, fires and floods, then lets return and scatter the wheat among what is left of the scorched earth and weakened tares for a thousand years, then regather all of the wheat, set fire to the tares and then go back to the barn.'
Maybe it was during the Olivet Discourse (Mt 24:37-) where our LORD compared the times to the time of antediluvian Noah? Um, no. He didn't say that they were in the age of Conscience did He? Or was that the Patriarchal Age as the Four Dispensational Scheme theologians teach it? No, maybe our LORD sided with the Three Dispensational Theologians and called Noah's Day the Age of "Law". You guys can't even agree on it being eight, seven, four or three Ages yet you claim Jesus taught it?
Do you know how it reads in Genesis 6:8? It says "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.Sounds like an Age of Grace that goes back to the Garden and is strongly supported in Hebrews 11.
I have a better idea, lets see what our LORD really said regarding the number of Ages.
Matt 12:32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
Or how about a direct quote from the aforementioned (and legitimate version) of the Parable of the Wheat and Tares?
"...so it will be at the end of this age"
I don't see our LORD recognizing either a Mosaic, Ecclesial or Zionic age here.
Luke 18:30 who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life."
What seems strange is that our LORD only speaks of the Present Age and the Age to Come. Two ages.
Now I have actually provided the Words of our LORD where He recognizes only two ages - now its your job to contradict those facts.
Are you up to it?
It would have been an even better metaphor had the brother who stayed home been an adopted son.
But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by [them that are] no people, [and] by a foolish nation I will anger you. - Romans 10:19
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. - Romans 11:11
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest he also spare not thee.
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural [branches], be graffed into their own olive tree?
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes.
For the gifts and calling of God [are] without repentance. - Romans 11:18-29
... and mankind fell with Adam, when sin entered the world and by sin came death, to which all mankind has been subject other than Jesus Christ himself.
So, we’ve come full circle here, right back where we started. You’ve since written words to the effect that Mary was not subject to sin, and that her grave is not known, apparently implying that she was assumed bodily into heaven. These statements would seem to contradict your initial statement that originally compelled me to respond in astonished agreement, while being very uncertain whether you actually agreed yourself.
You’ve certainly cleared up that uncertainty, oLofob. We’ve made progress here tonight.
What exactly did the Abrahamic Covenant consist of?
It ain't what you think.
Heb 11:8-10 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
Now it would seem mighty strange for Abraham, the guy who was actually there and wrestled with God, to be wrong in understanding the Covenant that God made with him. That is what Dispensationalists claim. They claim that Abraham had no idea about the meaning of the Covenant, and neither has thousands of years of people "of like faith of Abraham" (Gal 3). Instead, beginning in the middle 19th century from the same place, time and culture as the birth of Marxism and Evolution comes this idea that Abraham was gravely mistaken and foolish in looking at the Heavenly Kingdom when in fact he should have been thinking of 21st century Israel.
Judging by the rest of Hebrews 11, the Futurists must also think all the Patriarchs were crazy lunatics desiring "a better, heavenly country" and had no clue to the real deal God was talking about - modern Tel Aviv.
perfect example - 70 weeks = 490 days. if this passage is to be taken literally, we should be calculating a 490 day period. do you believe this passage is talking about 490 days or is the 70 weeks a type or shadow of a different time period?
Its actually more powerful than that. The context of the seventy weeks is where Daniel is pleading with God to be Merciful and not punish wicked and rebellious captive Israel by extending the seventy year captivity. Daniel was genuinely concerned that the Jews learned absolutely nothing while held hostage to Babylon. The whole book of Esther shows how close they all were to being slaughtered. Nonetheless, Daniel made petition to the Almighty because he had faith that God would be true to His Sovereign Will and Promise for the captivity to be no longer than seventy years.
It is in that context where the seventy years is perfectly fulfilled so that those who would live in the seventy weeks would know that when the LORD says seventy times, then it isn't sixty-nine times plus this "gap" of thousands of years before "restarting" the weeks clock to count the last and seventieth.
Futurists make a complete and total mockery of the "type" of seventy years captivity, and the Faithfulness of our LORD when they blatantly ignore the fulfillment of the relatively near/short prophecy to guarantee the longer.
IOW, if the type of seventy years captivity were to be reproduced according to how the Futurists handle the seventy weeks, then Daniel and all of the Jews would do sixty-nine years, then the year clock would "stop" for thousands of years and then "restart" to finish the last year before they could return to their homeland and rebuild the Temple.
Futurists hate OT types - it ruins their camp fire story.
The NT is the prophesy of the OT revealed.
Without 1st understanding the OT, one gets a false interpretation of the NT because one interprets the OT according to what they think the NT concludes without any knowledge as to who the characters are or what their purpose is.
Your theory tells me to pick up a novel, start reading 2/3 the way through and then write a report about the entirety of the novel by using the last 1/3 to define the characters & explain the time-line of what had happened in the 1st 2/3. Sorry, but your theory & logic contains absolutely no common sense what so ever.
The only thing that dispensationalism has brought into Christianity is confusion...
And bad fiction.
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.