Good question!!
Posted on 01/28/2014 7:27:17 PM PST by NKP_Vet
"If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!" That belief, commonly known as sola scriptura, was a central component of all I believed as a Protestant. This bedrock Protestant teaching claims that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals for Christians. Diving deeper into its meaning to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism about twenty years ago, I found that there was no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors and no book I could read to get a better understanding of it.
What role does tradition play? How explicit does something have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine? Does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians? How can we determine the canon using sola scriptura? All these questions and more pointed to the central question: Where is sola scriptura itself taught in the Bible?
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.com ...
Generally speaking 'all of Israel' or 'the whole house of Israel' or Jacob can be seen as "ALL tribes".
'The House of Israel', Ephraim, Joseph, Samaria, and 'not my people' (the 'lo ami' of Hosea) are specific to the Northern tribes.
Sometimes Jacob, Judah, 'House of Judah' and sometimes Jerusalem are specific to the Southern tribes - It is actually harder to determine these because Jerusalem is symbolic for many things...
Read the Tanakh like this for yourself, and I think you will be surprised at what you've missed... And if you see what I see, the New Covenant will blow your mind.
>>>The post was removed and yes, you did accuse another Freeper of lying which is a form of “making it personal.” It attributes motive, i.e. the intent to deceive.<<<
But he lied. This is what Cynical Bear said in post #392.
>>>Take your Preterist heresy somewhere else. It isn’t received well here.<<<
That is a lie: in fact it is two lies. I called him on it. He also called me a heretic. Who does he think he is, God?
That was not the first time he lied. This is his “everybody look at me” post #358, the real messy one:
>>Self taught and not a Preterist ey?<<<
I had explained previously that I was self-taught with a plain bible. This was his question, and my response:
>>>Ok, I have to ask. Are you of the Preterist persuasion?<<<
“Biblical. I learned the bible without the influence of a church, concordance, commentary, or even TV ministers. Since the only external tool I had was a fair knowledge of the English language, I used it.”
That is about the time he started getting nasty.
How many chances does he get before I get to respond? What are the rules? Do I complain to you directly?
Philip
>>>Read the Tanakh like this for yourself, and I think you will be surprised at what you’ve missed... <<<
Lol! Thanks. But I seem to recall that many of those who read it every day didn’t understand it. They expected the physical return of Elijah, and an earthly king. Is that correct?
Philip
There cannot be one set of rules for you and another set of rules for everyone else.
If you cannot or will not comply with RF guidelines, then leave this thread.
***
Now why would the people in those day think in physical terms?
Why at every Seder is there a place setting at the table for Elijah?
Actually Elijah now would be a resurrecting being
Sorry forgot to ping you
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3116855/posts?page=466#466
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3116855/posts?page=440#440
>>>And I have accepted your declaration denying Preterism at face value, even though you embrace Preterist literature (on the record),<<<
Wow! You must have assumed that Cynical Bear was knowledgable on this subject. I don’t think any of the authors or the lecturer I quoted are preterist. I know for a fact that Ken Gentry doctrine is similar to mine: postmillennial. So is John Otis’ doctrine. Both are Reformed Presbyterian ministers.
I gave Philip Mauro’s name because he was supposedly one of the better biblical researchers. The two books I have read by him are excellent: The Hope of Israel, and The Gospel of the Kingdom. He dispels a lot of the myths, such as the 1000 year earthly reign, and the third temple.
Dwight Wilson is an Assembly’s of God minister and a dispensationalist who was fed up with all the discrediting false prophecies from those on his side of the fence.
All I have read and know about these books and authors I have learned since last summer, when I finally came out of “spiritual seclusion,” for lack of a better analogy.
Philip
Many prophets? Where are their books? Don't prophets usually write things down?
What about the apostles. Have we been getting more of them, too? Where are their books?
Didn't the true Saints receive the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, or later from one who did, and were able to perform real miracles?
I am curious: how do you interpret these:
"Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"" (Mat 24:3 NKJV)
"Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." (Mat 24:34 NKJV)
Philip
I understand
>>>How that might answer your question might be an interesting exercise for you... Especially if one considers Jerusalem as ‘Babylon’ in one aspect, and the undeniable inheritor of the Babylonian beast empires (Daniel) as another. Where those two intersect..<<<
I don’t understand how relates to interpreting the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
Philip
http://www.omegaletter.com/articles/articles.asp?ArticleID=7077
Thank you
I have come to understand that many do not believe in a resurrected Jesus of having a body of flesh and bone. I think Scofield was one of the people to start that concept.
That definition of Dispensationalism is really different.
>>>How that might answer your question might be an interesting exercise for you... Especially if one considers Jerusalem as ‘Babylon’ in one aspect, and the undeniable inheritor of the Babylonian beast empires (Daniel) as another. Where those two intersect..<<<
I don’t understand how relates to interpreting the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
Philip
***
After you have studied it out in your mind and have an opinion, have any of you asked the Lord if this is correct?
>>>Am I satisfied that YHWH has fulfilled this wholly? No. When the Malki Tzedek sits in Jerusalem, “the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever”, THEN is this prophecy completed.<<<
Let’s say for the sake of argument that Ezekiel’s prophesy was for a third temple. In chapter 43 the Lord indicated the existence of the temple was conditional:
“Now let them put away their whoredom, and the carcases of their kings, far from me, and I will dwell in the midst of them for ever. Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern. And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.” (Eze 43:9-11 KJV)
Israel polluted the 2nd Temple with all sorts of abominations, and continued polluting up to time of its destruction in AD 70. Would that not negate any future Third Temple?
If there is a third Temple, how are the animal sacrifices handled? Christ has already paid for our sins with the sacrifice of himself; so is it true what Scofield wrote in 1909 Reference Bible that the animal sacrifices will be ceremonial? And if they are merely ceremonial, why slaughter the animals?
Philip
Malachi 4:5 specifically and Isaiah 40:3 and Joel 2:31 allude to the purpose of Elijah in the end times. And one more point about John the Baptist being Elijah the Prophet, he was asked by the religious leaders if he was Elijah:
Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Messiah.” They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No.” Finally they said, “Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, “I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’ Now the Pharisees who had been sent questioned him, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” “I baptize with water,” John replied, “but among you stands one you do not know. He is the one who comes after me, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.” (John 1:19-27)
Finally, I won't argue with you about Dispensationalism here for two reasons. One, this thread was posted by a Catholic who wanted to prove Catholicism is superior to any other Christian denomination based on the fact that we don't all agree about everything. We've explained that agreeing on the essentials is what matters and we generally do - with the exception of fringe, wanna-be Christian groups. Continuing to argue like you are against fellow non-Catholic Christians over nonessential doctrines only furthers their misconception. Like you have been asked several times, open a new thread and we can make it the topic - you claimed you were too busy to do that yet you continue to add comments trying to provoke further discussion on this thread.
The second reason is we should be able to discuss differences without resorting to ridicule, mockery, snideness and condescension. I may not agree with everything Dispensationalism teaches, but those that do are RARELY nasty and insulting towards those who aren't. This is not the first time the subject has come up on the RF. I hope you invest as much time and energy in defending your faith in Jesus Christ against false gospels - and there are plenty out there.
ALL Christians believe that Jesus' glorified body was a physical flesh and bone body. How could they not? Didn't Jesus even tell Thomas that when he told him to touch the nail prints in his hands and the wound in his side?
"And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet." (Luke 24:38-40)
He even asked them if they had anything to eat! Don't get your knowledge about people like Scofield based on what others think they know about him. He certainly NEVER "started that concept" about Jesus not having a flesh and bone resurrected body. I have no idea where you got that from.
Mormonism, on the other hand, teaches that God the Father had/has a flesh and bone body and was once a human being. THIS is false and unbiblical.
***
Your concepts contradict themselves as in your version of the Trinity thinking all 3 beings are of one substance.
Yes there are so many passages that define the Godhead, as well seem ambiguous under the Trinity version which the Lord is not.
Gen 1;26-27
26 ¶And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Here we have Jesus show up in our image, many traditionalist believe that the Father and Son are one substance, where as the LDS believe two separate personages but they are one in mind.
Also the Son always says his Father is greater than him, also now the Son had a body of flesh and bone made a little lower than angels, so who is manning the ship? If Heavenly Father is really is here playing roll of His Son?
at the same time many want to believe Heavenly Father is just a "spirit", while His only begotten Son had a temporal body of flesh and blood and after the resurrection, Jesus was Glorified he received an Eternal Body of Flesh and Bone.
The scriptures says...
Heb. 2
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
1 Tim 3
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
This is not the first planet aka world that Lord has harvest souls that man might have Joy.
It is sad that many will never know how the Book of Mormon is like the Urim and Thummim that unlock so many passages in the Bible so many try to read the scriptures like they would a academic book, but the language of the Bible is spiritual and is receive by the power of the Holy Ghost.
That's ok; because the founder of your chosen religion went the OTHER way and claimed that the Father has a body of flesh.
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.