Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
IP, what is remarkable, is how you cannot see how prophesies that are patently unfulfilled, WILL be fulfilled in God's good time. Jeremiah 12 is prophecy that fits very well to todays situation and can't be said to have happened as described before.
Who are 'My people'? Read these verses, they describe Christians:
Psalm 24:3-5, Romans 9:24-26, Malachi 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:11-18, Isaiah 56:1-3, Psalm 69:36, Psalm 37:9, Isaiah 55:1-3 and many other scriptures that describe those who belong to the Lord, pre or post Jesus.
No the prophecy has not been fulfilled
I recognize, and you admit, that you are asking loaded questions. The problem isn't in the response; the problem is in the questioner.
Loaded question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hmmm....
So, in the spirit of the loaded question, OneAccord, Have you stopped beating your wife?
A Simple yes or no will do.
Hmmm....
So, in the spirit of the loaded question, OneAccord, Have you stopped beating your wife?
A Simple yes or no will do.
There's nothing loaded about it, OneA. There is debate about whether that term's only translation is virgin.
Before you needle people about literalism with the OT, you might want to see if that is how the NT handled things. We do not have permission to go directly out of the OT if the apostles were doing something else with it. Many "land" references in the OT simply meant God would establish his people, ground them, give them a basis; the question is who his people are (esp in light of the NT), and what kind of thing is a solid and unshakeable "ground" in the NT.
Keras,
so why is this never expressed in the NT?
Here is why: the aspect of the land mattered in post-exilic thinking. But the climactic event in that return to the land was the pouring out of the spirit (it is really astounding how fragmented futurism is on this--they accept all kinds of external events but the Spirit's coming never matters). Now, we all know when the Spirit came, and futurism is typically very uncomfortable with how Peter handled Joel 2.
For ex., there was a member here who once said it is as plain as day: just as Peter "denied Christ" three times, he also was totally mistaken about what happened at Pentecost! Do you see my point? This is a fragementing theology (2P2P) imposing itself on the Word, and unable to admit it. It would rather say that Peter blew it that day than to agree to the apostle's teaching!
My goodness, do we have to discuss Dispensationalism hereSomething like that; about the actual sense of Peter's "this is that," Acts 2 address, is found in E.W. Bullinger's great book, "How to Understand and Enjoy the Bible."
Basically, the book is about the various principles of Bible study he used.
Bullinger was one of the earlier pioneers of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, but in his senior years allowed himself to be swayed by Charles Welch's areguements for an Acts 28 Dispensationalism.
In both, his "this that," as well as in his Acts 28 assertions, it is obvious he did not always follow the great study principles he asserts in that must have book.
Perhaps you were dealing with an Acts 28er.
...
Keras,
so why is this never expressed in the NT?
Here is why: the aspect of the land mattered in post-exilic thinking. But the climactic event in that return to the land was the pouring out of the spirit (it is really astounding how fragmented futurism is on this--they accept all kinds of external events but the Spirit's coming never matters). Now, we all know when the Spirit came, and futurism is typically very uncomfortable with how Peter handled Joel 2.
For ex., there was a member here who once said it is as plain as day: just as Peter "denied Christ" three times, he also was totally mistaken about what happened at Pentecost! Do you see my point? This is a fragementing theology (2P2P) imposing itself on the Word, and unable to admit it. It would rather say that Peter blew it that day than to agree to the apostle's teaching!
If anyone can understand this post please raise your hand!It is not forget them at all Keras! It is: read them the way the apostles do. It is nothing like D'ism, futurism, Judaism, 2P2P. Nothing.
The NT does innovate and transform many of them. go through John and find out how many things have a new meaning in christ: king, kingdom, manna, exodus. Look at Jn 12:34. Judaism thought one way about the whole realm of OT expectation, but Christ said walk in the light while you have the light. It was all about him. It is not about 1000 things happening.
Your can the whole lot has to be cross checked with Rom 9 (actually 3:3 starts it): has the word of God failed? No! Not because of literal fulfillment, but because it (the redemptive/gospel promise) never was about the descendancy of Israel to start with. It has always been about the Seed, which was Christ and what would be true in him in his Gospel. The huge multitude or seed exists because of faith in him as well. Correcting us to this misconception (of his readers or former friends in Judaism) is what Paul is busy doing in Rom 4, 9, Gal 3, Eph 2, 3, Acts 13.
I'm quite aware of Is 40-66, and of how the NT uses it. I have been at work in it for years. When I go with what the NT says, I cannot get to the belief that a future set of externals will bypass what has transpired in the Gospel and will occur in Judea. The NT is very consistent about shaping these prophecies by Christ, about getting Christ "formed" in you (I believe that expression to be contrasting solidly with what had formed in them from Judaism).
Now, if I go at it apart from the NT, purposefully ignoring it, not only the quotes but the larger sections of statements of the NT about the OT and just use the OT myself, then yes I would come up with completely different conclusions. That is the whole point!
That is why the member here completely dumped Peter in Acts 2. I notice you said nothing about it. Yet that is the only thing you can do. You have to say Peter was in his reprobate mindset of denying Christ in Acts 2 for your "system" to hold together.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?