Faith in the living, resurrected Word (while the scriptures are only 50% historically accurate).

[Hillsage]

Its illogical to say that God only cares if people disrespect the book of revelation and not the rest when we see that God says all scripture is inspired by him.

For one thing "is", is not in the original. IOW "all scripture [IS] inspired" by Him. I would have more correctly said; "all scripture [WAS] inspired" by him.

IOW for me it would be just as illogical for you to say that 'GOD inspired all the translations' in the hands of Christians all over the world. That He inspired the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPH scriptures, I most certainly do believe. But none of those original "scriptures/graphe/writings" are in existence, so beyond them it's just not completely true IMO.

According to the words of Jesus his Words are Spirit. The Scripture in the psalm I quoted says God would preserve his word , do you believe he failed to do that ?

Does your scripture differentiate between scripture inspired by God, versus words spoken by God?

NUM 30:2 If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.

DEU 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

MAT 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

The point I'm making is this. If God inspired me with his unspoken sunrise this morning and I wrote those words of inspiration down...would they then be "words proceeding from the MOUTH of God"? I'm of the persuasion that they are not. And neither was Paul;

1CO 7:25 Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.

So is this WORD in scripture above from the MOUTH OF GOD?

 

[Hillsage]

Myself personally when I recieved the Holy Spirit I began to experience God communicating with me. As I read the Bible what I read in Gospels began to explain what I was feeling and what was happening to me which is how I new in a personal experiential way that Scripture was truth even before I fully researched the history of its preservation.

I first heard The Holy Spirit before I got saved. For it is He that first “convicts us of sin, righteousness and judgment.” And it was hearing a spoken “rhema/word” “proceeding from the mouth of God” that gave me the faith to believe in my heart and confess Jesus with my mouth.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word/rhema of God.

That’s when I received the same spirit that Jesus was born with...the holy Sspirit of Christ. And then, even as Jesus received the Holy Spirit of God 30 years later, so also did I receive the Holy Spirit of God...but it was 6 months later for me. Scriptures and the personal words from God for me both took a big increase with that baptism. Then, just like the house of Cornelius, I was water baptized after my Holy Spirit baptism.

 

[Billy UK]

IOW for me it would be just as illogical for you to say that 'GOD inspired all the translations' in the hands of Christians all over the world. That He inspired the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPH scriptures, I most certainly do believe. But none of those original "scriptures/graphe/writings" are in existence, so beyond them it's just not completely true IMO.

Did I say all translations ? I said all Scripture and that Scripture has been preserved through manuscripts.

 

[redleghunter]

I'll go one better:

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." (Jn 18:36)

Indeed. That was the first Advent. What does it say in Scriptures about the Second coming and Day of the Lord?

 

[redleghunter]

There's no 'chucking out', we aim to understand these passages.

I daresay the answer is more spiritual. The youths represent the sinful thoughts and devil's tempting Elisha to allow doubt and fallen selfish ambition to creep in and put God to the test (like he tried by taunting Jesus in the desert and on the cross). The prophet shows no mercy and doesn't entertain those 'little' impulses, but instead squelches them before they grow (the furious beasts to tear them apart). So the villains here are spiritual (sin and the devil) not physical (juvenile delinquents).

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Eph 6:12)

So “Spiritualizing” the Scriptures only kicks in when we find something offensive to our sensibilities? The conquest of Canaanite city states must also be “Spiritualized?” The destruction of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah too that God called for? Loads of children were dashed to pieces, taken in slavery and raped by Assyrians and Babylonians.

We must find a Spiritualization of those historical events why?

 

[Saint Steven]

Possibly. This event is not counted among Elisha's double portion of miracles though.
THE SECOND BOOK OF KINGS - The Miracles of Elisha

Again, I'd be reluctant to accept this passage is about the power of God to terrorise blasphemers or whatever.

Isn't that it in the number 3 spot?

Elisha's 16 miracles:

1. Parted the waters of the Jordan River (2 Kng 2:14)
2. Purification of the water source for Jericho (2 Kng 2:18-22)
3. Protection of the prophet by two she-bears (2 Kng 2:23-25)
4. Water for the army of Israel and success over the Moabites (2 Kng 3:16-25)
5. Providing the widow's oil (2 Kng 4:1-7)
6. Elisha's annunciation prophecy for the woman from Shunem (2 Kng 4:8-17)
7. Resurrection of the son of the Shunammite woman (2 Kng 4:18-37)
8. Purified the poison soup (2 Kng 4:38-41)
9. Multiplication of loaves (2 Kng 4:42-44)
10. Healing of Naaman (2 Kng 5:1-19)
11. Gehazi cursed with a skin disease (2 Kng 5:25-27)
12. Miracle of finding the axe (2 Kng 6:1-7)
13. Capturing a band of Aramaeans by striking them blind (2 Kng 6:8-23)
14. Prophesizing relief from the enemy and the famine (2 Kng 6:24-7:20)
15. Prophesizing the death of Ben-Hadad and the rise of Hazael (2 Kng 8:7-15)
16. Prophesizing that Israel's defeat of King Hazael of Damascus (2 Kng 13:14-19)
    

 

[Saint Steven]

Haha, really? Don't think those 42 kids had time to repent of their folly. Still, I guess their buddies didn't come back with a howitzer.

[edit] Forgive me, but that's such a Yank exegesis. Get some respect with a vulgar display of superior firepower lol.

I don't think it was for the kids.

Maybe you have never worked as a manager or leader? Respect isn't free, you have to earn it.

 

[Saint Steven]

Nice, but I'd say the horse is Christ, the cart is Christ and the cargo is Christ. If we can't find Jesus all over that passage, we're not putting our hand to the plough right.

That would be pushing the limits. We're talking about the book of 2 Kings here.

 

[Saint Steven]

Personally I don't think you can find JESUS in the OT at all. Though that is an oft repeated statement in the church, for sure. I don't believe it because Jesus was a man, consisting of spirit/soul/body. He was the WORD became FLESH. And in that flesh was the Sspirit of Christ, not the Holy Spirit of GOD. And that happened during that 30 period between the OT ending and the NT beginning.

Even Paul said;
2CO 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

Now, the Sspirit of Christ, which was IN the man JESUS, I do agree was in the OT.

1PE 1:10 The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this salvation; 11 they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory.

What about this?

John 5:45-47
“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

John 1:45
Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

 

[public hermit]

I will be the first to admit that some of the early church's allegorical interpretations go off the rails. But, the general approach makes sense. Here's one way to look at it: the OT is not "spiritualized," it is sacramental. Christ is revealed in the OT. It is not the primary revelation. The primary revelation was that first generation of Christians and their proclamation, their witness. Nonetheless, once a Christian has this good news in hand (heart), then she can see Christ all through the OT. The Hebrew scriptures become Christian when you can see Christ all through them. The Exodus saga being a salient example.

If a so-called offensive text is "spiritualized," it is because it is so far from what we know in Jesus Christ that we recognize, whether it is historically accurate or not, it is not for us. If it doesn't speak of Christ, or it doesn't lead us to live in him, then it is not for us. For example, why is it Christian parents don't take their rebellious, out-of-control children to the church elders to have them stoned to death? There is certainly scriptural support for such a thing. Well, some will answer that law no longer applies, not due to its offense, but due to the finished work of Christ which fulfilled the law. Okay, fine. But, I don't need to hear that in order to know it has nothing to do with loving others as he loved me. That "new command" isn't some add on to all the other stuff. It is the command.

At any rate, If I believe the scriptures are 100% historically accurate, and yet I have not love, then all I have are a bunch of facts. This is part of what boggles my mind when it comes to the hesitation on this issue. I can believe all the facts and have nothing, but in order to have everything all I need is Christ.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Yes, I agree. Mileto of Sardis' Peri Pascha, for example, is a fascinating interpretation of the Exodus (Passover) through the lens of Christ.

On the Passover - Melito of Sardis - Kerux 4:1 (May 1989)

That's the good stuff, thanks for the link! As the Wiki article says, he's got the supersessionism and high Christology. Isn't that what Christian interpretation is all about? Christological, Christotelic and Christocentric. The ubiquity of Christ in the Bible and in creation.

 

[public hermit]

That's the good stuff, thanks for the link! As the Wiki article says, he's got the supersessionism and high Christology.

He catches some grief because of the supersessionism. However, what people forget is that, at that time, Christians were still trying to appropriate the OT for themselves. We're so used to thinking of the OT as our own, that we tend to forget that was a significant issue early on. And so, in terms of interpretation, if they couldn't see Christ in them, they couldn't legitimately call them their own.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Personally I don't think you can find JESUS in the OT at all. Though that is an oft repeated statement in the church, for sure. I don't believe it because Jesus was a man, consisting of spirit/soul/body. He was the WORD became FLESH. And in that flesh was the Sspirit of Christ, not the Holy Spirit of GOD. And that happened during that 30 period between the OT ending and the NT beginning.

Even Paul said;
2CO 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

Now, the Sspirit of Christ, which was IN the man JESUS, I do agree was in the OT.

1PE 1:10 The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this salvation; 11 they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory.

I appreciate the distinction, thanks. As it's a spiritual interpretation, the reference to Jesus is necessarily to be read accordingly. Do you see any difference between the 'spirit of Christ' and what might be called the 'figure of Christ', the substance and the form? An example of the form might be destruction and restoration by grace (eg of Jerusalem, the world etc), or exitus-reditus (emanation-return).

 

[Hillsage]

What about this?

John 5:45-47
“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

John 1:45
Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

Sorry, I wasn't even thinking about the messianic prophesies with my comment. Of course they were there to help the Jews receive Him when He came. Not that the "orthodox church" (sic) of that day was clued in to even see them. I'm talking about people who think Jesus was Yahweh. And that particular 'example' will probably be getting me into trouble with a poster especially. But since he hasn't posted for 5 pages maybe I'll slip through 'not having to deal with my opinion'.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

He catches some grief because of the supersessionism.

How can supersessionism be objectionable to any Christian? It's the charge to boast in Christ that something greater than the law has arrived, no?

However, what people forget is that, at that time, Christians were still trying to appropriate the OT for themselves. We're so used to thinking of the OT as our own, that we tend to forget that was a significant issue early on. And so, in terms of interpretation, if they couldn't see Christ in them, they couldn't legitimately call them their own.

Sure, it's like the Didache on fasting: 'We don't fast with the hypocrites on Mondays and Wednesdays...we fast on Tuesdays and Thursdays'. Lol. In Hitlerian terms 'Leibensraum'!

But it's really a spiritual work that can't or shouldn't be reduced to cultural/ political terms.

 

[Saint Steven]

Sorry, I wasn't even thinking about the messianic prophesies with my comment. Of course they were there to help the Jews receive Him when He came. Not that the "orthodox church" (sic) of that day was clued in to even see them. I'm talking about people who think Jesus was Yahweh. And that particular 'example' will probably be getting me into trouble with a poster especially. But since he hasn't posted for 5 pages maybe I'll slip through 'not having to deal with my opinion'.

Yup.
I love this comparison below. Many use the Matt. five verse to support the law still being in effect. But Jesus explains what he meant in the Luke twenty-four verse. Obviously, "the Law or the Prophets" in Matthew referred to the books, not the law itself.

Matthew 5:17
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Luke 24:44
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

 

[public hermit]

How can supersessionism be objectionable to any Christian? It's the charge to boast in Christ that something greater than the law has arrived, no?



Sure, it's like the Didache on fasting: 'We don't fast with the hypocrites on Mondays and Wednesdays...we fast on Tuesdays and Thursdays'. Lol. In Hitlerian terms 'Leibensraum'!

But it's really a spiritual work that can't or shouldn't be reduced to cultural/ political terms.

Well, I think you've pretty much highlighted why some find it objectionable. I, personally, don't see the OT as exclusively Christian. We share those scriptures. I pretty much look to Paul's discussion on the matter in Romans and try to stay humble about it. You know, grafting in and such.

I don't fault the early church for appropriating them. On the contrary, I'm glad they did. Any anti-Semitism that came with it; however, was in no way necessary. But, the fact that Christians saw Christ in the OT is unavoidable.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Well, I think you've pretty much highlighted why some find it objectionable. I, personally, don't see the OT as exclusively Christian. We share those scriptures. I pretty much look to Paul's discussion on the matter in Romans and try to stay humble about it. You know, grafting in and such.

I don't fault the early church for appropriating them. On the contrary, I'm glad they did. Any anti-Semitism that came with it; however, was in no way necessary. But, the fact that Christians saw Christ in the OT is unavoidable.

Isn't the idea to make the Jews jealous as per Rom 11:14? They're still playing with pebbles before the great sea of knowledge. And the law can't save, it only tends to make you a loophole thinker.

 

[public hermit]

Isn't the idea to make the Jews jealous as per Rom 11:14? They're still playing with pebbles before the great sea of knowledge. And the law can't save, it only tends to make you a loophole thinker.

What does making them jealous look like?

 

[Hillsage]

I appreciate the distinction, thanks. As it's a spiritual interpretation, the reference to Jesus is necessarily to be read accordingly. Do you see any difference between the 'spirit of Christ' and what might be called the 'figure of Christ', the substance and the form? An example of the form might be destruction and restoration by grace (eg of Jerusalem, the world etc), or exitus-reditus (emanation-return).

I 'think' I do see a distinction. I think it is still a little murky to see, or even to study. I know that the word can mean "anointed" as well as "the anointed one" and the epithet definition is where the church 'may' blur the lines of understanding IMO.

5547 Christos: anointed, i.e. the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus

But I haven't studied it enough to take much of a position or take any kind of real stand. Do you take a "substance/form" distinction with your examples above?

JOH 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias/Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ/Christos.

3323 Messias: the Messias (i.e. Mashiach), or Christ

5547 Christos: anointed, i.e. the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus

Thoughts?