Let's breath some life into this board!

[Mankin]

Come on progs, come back. I'm not about to let this board die on it's own. How about some theological questions to get this thing going.

"Why and how were Moses and Elijah allowed into heaven before Jesus died to justify us?" I'll post my thoughts later.

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

Come on progs, come back. I'm not about to let this board die on it's own. How about some theological questions to get this thing going.

"Why and how were Moses and Elijah allowed into heaven before Jesus died to justify us?" I'll post my thoughts later.

I was going to say that the way to breath life into this board would be to read Eph 4, particularly v. 3 and hold of on reacting violently and aggresively when a "trad" makes a post. Something about making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

 

[digdeep]

Come on progs, come back. I'm not about to let this board die on it's own. How about some theological questions to get this thing going.

"Why and how were Moses and Elijah allowed into heaven before Jesus died to justify us?" I'll post my thoughts later.

"Whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, BECAUSE IN THE FORBEARANCE OF GOD HE PASSED OVER THE SINS PREVIOUSLY COMMITTED;" Romans 3:25

"Passed over the sins previously committed" refers to the sins that was committed before the cross. when it says the "Forbearance of God" it's refering to the fact that He withheld His judgment until the Right Time. Which was Jesus bearing all sins.

That's my 2 cents worth.

DD

 

[honorthesabbath]

"Whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, BECAUSE IN THE FORBEARANCE OF GOD HE PASSED OVER THE SINS PREVIOUSLY COMMITTED;" Romans 3:25

"Passed over the sins previously committed" refers to the sins that was committed before the cross. when it says the "Forbearance of God" it's refering to the fact that He withheld His judgment until the Right Time. Which was Jesus bearing all sins.

That's my 2 cents worth.

DD

Thats a good answer Dig. I also think they were admitted into heaven because they had FAITH in the merits of Christ from which the sacrificial and ceremonial systems taught them. In looking FORWARD to the cross, they were just as justified as we who look back at it.

Ro 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Ec 3:15 That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.

 

[digdeep]

Thats a good answer Dig. I also think they were admitted into heaven because they had FAITH in the merits of Christ from which the sacrificial and ceremonial systems taught them. In looking FORWARD to the cross, they were just as justified as we who look back at it.

Ro 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Ec 3:15 That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.

Great stuff. I didn't even think of the sacrificial system.



DD

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

A couple of things. First we don't know really whether Elijah was taken to heaven.

(2 Ki 2:11 NIV) As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

Then they went out looking for him. There really is no concept of heaven for people after they die at that time in ancient Israel, so I don't know that that is how they would have thought about it. The idea was progressing thanks to some of the wisdom literature but not really there. We often look at these stories from the much more advanced views which came much later.

And the story of Moses taken after a discussion with the devil is taken from an apocryphal book that Jude and 1 or 2 Peter quotes. And the point of telling those stories was to point out how wicked people have no respect and say whatever against whomever they will:

(Jude 1:9 NIV) But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

(Jude 1:10 NIV) Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals--these are the very things that destroy them.

Now let us assume that both stories are true and that these people arrived in Heaven before Jesus died and rose again. The only reason that would be a problem is if people thought that Jesus paid a penalty that God demanded. In other words how could God forgive before He was persuaded to forgive by punishing Jesus.

But of course there is nothing like that in the Bible. Both the old and New Testaments reveal that God can and does freely forgive. As such He can save whoever whenever He wants.

The idea that old Testament people were somehow looking forward to Christ is without any Biblical merit and logically not really possible as you can't detect such things from symbols. The symbols only become meaningful after what they signified has occurred. John the Baptist could say that Jesus was the lamb that takes away the sin of the world, probably through inspiration but just like the disciples it appears he did not know what that meant as they expected something entirely different, a restored Israel. Looking backwards however because we have the benefit of the knowledge of what happened it becomes much clearer.

 

[sentipente]

Come on progs, come back. I'm not about to let this board die on it's own. How about some theological questions to get this thing going.

"Why and how were Moses and Elijah allowed into heaven before Jesus died to justify us?" I'll post my thoughts later.

It is difficult to come to a conclusion about ideas that have not been settled as fact.

 

[honorthesabbath]

A couple of things. First we don't know really whether Elijah was taken to heaven.
Then they went out looking for him. There really is no concept of heaven for people after they die at that time in ancient Israel, so I don't know that that is how they would have thought about it. The idea was progressing thanks to some of the wisdom literature but not really there. We often look at these stories from the much more advanced views which came much later.

And the story of Moses taken after a discussion with the devil is taken from an apocryphal book that Jude and 1 or 2 Peter quotes. And the point of telling those stories was to point out how wicked people have no respect and say whatever against whomever they will:
Now let us assume that both stories are true and that these people arrived in Heaven before Jesus died and rose again. The only reason that would be a problem is if people thought that Jesus paid a penalty that God demanded. In other words how could God forgive before He was persuaded to forgive by punishing Jesus.

But of course there is nothing like that in the Bible. Both the old and New Testaments reveal that God can and does freely forgive. As such He can save whoever whenever He wants.

The idea that old Testament people were somehow looking forward to Christ is without any Biblical merit and logically not really possible as you can't detect such things from symbols.

The symbols only become meaningful after what they signified has occurred. John the Baptist could say that Jesus was the lamb that takes away the sin of the world, probably through inspiration but just like the disciples it appears he did not know what that meant as they expected something entirely different, a restored Israel. Looking backwards however because we have the benefit of the knowledge of what happened it becomes much clearer.

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Don't know you could possibly miss that fact that the ancients understood the message of the sacrifices and the ceremonies. It's ALL over the OT.
Just type in 'saviour' in your electronic bible and see what you get.

 

[freeindeed2]

I was going to say that the way to breath life into this board would be to read Eph 4, particularly v. 3 and hold of on reacting violently and aggresively when a "trad" makes a post. Something about making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

My simple answer:

Moses represents the law.

Elijah represents the prophets.

They both appear with Jesus at his transfiguration.

Then Moses & Elijah (law and prophets) disappear and only Christ is left and a voice from heaven (God) says "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. Listen to him."

Here's the story. Are we following God by listening to Jesus, or are we still clinging to the OC and hold the law and prophets as a higher standard than Christ himself?



Six days later Jesus took Peter and the two brothers, James and John, and led them up a high mountain to be alone. As the men watched, Jesus’ appearance was transformed so that his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as light. Suddenly, Moses and Elijah appeared and began talking with Jesus.

Peter exclaimed, “Lord, it’s wonderful for us to be here! If you want, I’ll make three shelters as memorials—one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”

But even as he spoke, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my dearly loved Son, who brings me great joy. Listen to him.” The disciples were terrified and fell face down on the ground.

Then Jesus came over and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.” And when they looked up, Moses and Elijah were gone, and they saw only Jesus.

As they went back down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”

Then his disciples asked him, “Why do the teachers of religious law insist that Elijah must return before the Messiah comes?”
Jesus replied, “Elijah is indeed coming first to get everything ready. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, but he wasn’t recognized, and they chose to abuse him. And in the same way they will also make the Son of Man suffer.” Then the disciples realized he was talking about John the Baptist.

In CHRIST alone...

 

[BGMCFAR]

My simple answer:

Moses represents the law.

Elijah represents the prophets.

They both appear with Jesus at his transfiguration.

Then Moses & Elijah (law and prophets) disappear and only Christ is left and a voice from heaven (God) says "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. Listen to him."

Here's the story. Are we following God by listening to Jesus, or are we still clinging to the OC and hold the law and prophets as a higher standard than Christ himself?



Six days later Jesus took Peter and the two brothers, James and John, and led them up a high mountain to be alone. As the men watched, Jesus’ appearance was transformed so that his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as light. Suddenly, Moses and Elijah appeared and began talking with Jesus.

Peter exclaimed, “Lord, it’s wonderful for us to be here! If you want, I’ll make three shelters as memorials—one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”

But even as he spoke, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my dearly loved Son, who brings me great joy. Listen to him.” The disciples were terrified and fell face down on the ground.

Then Jesus came over and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.” And when they looked up, Moses and Elijah were gone, and they saw only Jesus.

As they went back down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”

Then his disciples asked him, “Why do the teachers of religious law insist that Elijah must return before the Messiah comes?”
Jesus replied, “Elijah is indeed coming first to get everything ready. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, but he wasn’t recognized, and they chose to abuse him. And in the same way they will also make the Son of Man suffer.” Then the disciples realized he was talking about John the Baptist.

In CHRIST alone...

Free thank you amazing I never realized the reality of the transfiguration that way. I guess some of us old dogs are open to new food. God bless and thanks again.

 

[honorthesabbath]

My simple answer:

Moses represents the law.

Elijah represents the prophets.

They both appear with Jesus at his transfiguration.

Then Moses & Elijah (law and prophets) disappear and only Christ is left and a voice from heaven (God) says "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. Listen to him."

Here's the story. Are we following God by listening to Jesus, or are we still clinging to the OC and hold the law and prophets as a higher standard than Christ himself?



Six days later Jesus took Peter and the two brothers, James and John, and led them up a high mountain to be alone. As the men watched, Jesus’ appearance was transformed so that his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as light. Suddenly, Moses and Elijah appeared and began talking with Jesus.

Peter exclaimed, “Lord, it’s wonderful for us to be here! If you want, I’ll make three shelters as memorials—one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”

But even as he spoke, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my dearly loved Son, who brings me great joy. Listen to him.” The disciples were terrified and fell face down on the ground.

Then Jesus came over and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.” And when they looked up, Moses and Elijah were gone, and they saw only Jesus.

As they went back down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”

Then his disciples asked him, “Why do the teachers of religious law insist that Elijah must return before the Messiah comes?”
Jesus replied, “Elijah is indeed coming first to get everything ready. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, but he wasn’t recognized, and they chose to abuse him. And in the same way they will also make the Son of Man suffer.” Then the disciples realized he was talking about John the Baptist.

In CHRIST alone...

Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. (Jesus)

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Don't know you could possibly miss that fact that the ancients understood the message of the sacrifices and the ceremonies. It's ALL over the OT.
Just type in 'saviour' in your electronic bible and see what you get.

That is cute. As they say a verse taken out of context is a pretext. As you would know if you read the context when Jesus explains what He meant.

54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God’; 55 and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. 56 “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.

Abraham saw the time of God because God has always existed and Abraham rejoiced in God and the promises of God given to Abraham.

As some commentaries note:

Wesley's Notes
8:56 He saw it - By faith in types, figures, and promises; as particularly in Melchisedec; in the appearance of Jehovah to him in the plains of Mamre, Gen 18:1; and in the promise that in his seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed. Possibly he had likewise a peculiar revelation either of Christ's first or second coming.


Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
56. Abraham rejoiced to see my day, &c.-exulted, or exceedingly rejoiced that he should see, he exulted to see it, that is, by anticipation. Nay, he saw it, and was glad-he actually beheld it, to his joy. If this mean no more than that he had a prophetic foresight of the gospel-day-the second clause just repeating the first-how could the Jews understand our Lord to mean that He "had seen Abraham?" And if it mean that Abraham was then beholding, in his disembodied spirit, the incarnate Messiah [Stier, Alford, &c.], the words seem very unsuitable to express it. It expresses something past-"he saw My day, and was glad," that is, surely while he lived. He seems to refer to the familiar intercourse which Abraham had with God, who is once and again in the history called "the Angel of the Lord," and whom Christ here identifies with Himself. On those occasions, Abraham "saw ME" (Olshausen, though he thinks the reference is to some unrecorded scene). If this be the meaning, all that follows is quite natural.

Of course Abraham had none of the sanctuary symbols and ceremonies as those were given later.

 

[freeindeed2]

Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. (Jesus)

And this contradicts how?

In CHRIST alone...

 

[honorthesabbath]

That is cute. As they say a verse taken out of context is a pretext. As you would know if you read the context when Jesus explains what He meant.



Abraham saw the time of God because God has always existed and Abraham rejoiced in God and the promises of God given to Abraham.

As some commentaries note:


Of course Abraham had none of the sanctuary symbols and ceremonies as those were given later.

Abraham 'saw' the sacrifice of Christ in the sacrificial system.
And if Abraham didn't understand about the sacrifices, what was he about to do with Issac when the Angel stayed his hand?

I have perfect understanding on the context RC--why do you always feel the need to demean?

 

[honorthesabbath]

A couple of things. First we don't know really whether Elijah was taken to heaven.
Then they went out looking for him.

There really is no concept of heaven for people after they die at that time in ancient Israel, so I don't know that that is how they would have thought about it.

Care to elaborate and biblically prove this statement?

The idea was progressing thanks to some of the wisdom literature but not really there. We often look at these stories from the much more advanced views which came much later.

Ditto my first question

And the story of Moses taken after a discussion with the devil is taken from an apocryphal book that Jude and 1 or 2 Peter quotes.

Proof please!

And the point of telling those stories was to point out how wicked people have no respect and say whatever against whomever they will:

Huh?

Now let us assume that both stories are true and that these people arrived in Heaven before Jesus died and rose again. The only reason that would be a problem is if people thought that Jesus paid a penalty that God demanded. In other words how could God forgive before He was persuaded to forgive by punishing Jesus.

But of course there is nothing like that in the Bible. Both the old and New Testaments reveal that God can and does freely forgive. As such He can save whoever whenever He wants.

So why did He boot Adam and Eve out of the garden and take eternal life from them? Why not just forgive them on the spot?

BTW--have you forgotten or did you ever know that after the fall, it was God Himself who clothed the pair in ANIMAL skins?

And what about the pronouncement of the Cross in the garden?

Ge 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The idea that old Testament people were somehow looking forward to Christ is without any Biblical merit and logically not really possible as you can't detect such things from symbols.
The symbols only become meaningful after what they signified has occurred.

This is so not true. Hence the reason I posted this..

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

John the Baptist could say that Jesus was the lamb that takes away the sin of the world, probably through inspiration

Ahh yeah--isn't ALL our understanding of Spiritual things thru Inspiration?

but just like the disciples it appears he did not know what that meant as they expected something entirely different, a restored Israel.

Proof?

Not ALL were without understanding of the mission of the Messiah.
A cursory reading of Psalms is proof enough that the ancients knew of the ONE who was their Saviour. Abrahams descendants understood it thru Issac. But like most truth, the Messiah's true mission did get obscured. However, God has always had a remnant that has preserved His truth, hasn't He?

Looking backwards however because we have the benefit of the knowledge of what happened it becomes much clearer.

Clear-ER yes, but not totally unknown.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Sorry Honor I can't educate you on a discussion board. Read the Bible and see. As you read try and find the first place where you see an idea of life after death. Ecclesiastes spurs the idea by asking who knows what happens to man or animals spirits. Another book from that period Job makes the first statement about resurrection but it hardly makes a teaching of that. Then you have the book of Daniel which while apocalyptic indicates much more clearly a resurrection. But that is about it.

Know was God the first to kill on Earth as Honor assumes. That God killed an animal to clothe people. The God who just created the heavens and the earth but He had to kill one of His creation to make a garment. Of course it would still have to be a miracle because you don't simply kill and skin an animal and sew it into a garment. No there is quite a process to go through to do that something not done in a day.

Is Gen 3:15 a prophecy of the cross. Again no it is never repeated as being a prophecy of the cross in the New Testament. It's use was incorporated by later church tradition. The verse stands well on its own as a statement about the enmity between human beings and snakes.

By the way Jim has been trying to come up with Old Testament evidence that they believed the sacrificial system pointed to Christ for well over a year and has not been able to produce any. It is not surprising the Jews never thought it was pointed to a messiah and it was their tradition. It was only with the reality of Christ having occurred that Christianity could look back and draw the parallels.

So you can say it is not true and demand proof all you want, I could do the same for all you have said. But you need to learn to read what the Bible says for what it says rather then inserting your own meaning into it or you will simply be bending the Bible to suit your accepted traditions.

 

[NightEternal]

I was going to say that the way to breath life into this board would be to read Eph 4, particularly v. 3 and hold of on reacting violently and aggresively when a "trad" makes a post. Something about making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

There is no unity between us and them Ben. And there never will be.

It reached a culmination in 1888 and climaxed at Glacierview. And it will only get worse until there is a official schism and split in the denomination.

 

[sentipente]

There is no unity between us and them Ben. And there never will be.

It reached a culmination in 1888 and climaxed at Glacierview. And it will only get worse until there is a official schism and split in the denomination.

You may be correct but something about this strikes me the wrong way. Humans cannot continue down the road of fragmentation until we destroy ourselves.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Sorry Honor I can't educate you on a discussion board. Read the Bible and see. As you read try and find the first place where you see an idea of life after death. Ecclesiastes spurs the idea by asking who knows what happens to man or animals spirits. Another book from that period Job makes the first statement about resurrection but it hardly makes a teaching of that. Then you have the book of Daniel which while apocalyptic indicates much more clearly a resurrection. But that is about it.

Know was God the first to kill on Earth as Honor assumes. That God killed an animal to clothe people. The God who just created the heavens and the earth but He had to kill one of His creation to make a garment. Of course it would still have to be a miracle because you don't simply kill and skin an animal and sew it into a garment. No there is quite a process to go through to do that something not done in a day.

Is Gen 3:15 a prophecy of the cross. Again no it is never repeated as being a prophecy of the cross in the New Testament. It's use was incorporated by later church tradition. The verse stands well on its own as a statement about the enmity between human beings and snakes.

By the way Jim has been trying to come up with Old Testament evidence that they believed the sacrificial system pointed to Christ for well over a year and has not been able to produce any. It is not surprising the Jews never thought it was pointed to a messiah and it was their tradition. It was only with the reality of Christ having occurred that Christianity could look back and draw the parallels.

So you can say it is not true and demand proof all you want, I could do the same for all you have said. But you need to learn to read what the Bible says for what it says rather then inserting your own meaning into it or you will simply be bending the Bible to suit your accepted traditions.

RC--at the risk of drawing a reported post I'll decline to comment on this post of yours. It's just so..........ahh--never mind.

And don't ever think you have the tools to educate me--you don't.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

RC--at the risk of drawing a reported post I'll decline to comment on this post of yours. It's just so..........ahh--never mind.

And don't ever think you have the tools to educate me--you don't.

I agree I don't have the tools to educate you as the essential need for education is to have a mind open to learning. Lacking that the most skillful teacher can do nothing.

A really good article by Fritz Guy has this quote:

The bad news is that much of the time we don’t really read the Bible; as my colleague John Jones says, we raid the Bible. We go through it to find hand grenades we can lob at other churches, and at our opponents inside our own church. In the process we often read superficially, misunderstanding and misusing the Biblical text. We ignore original languages, contexts and meanings in order to establish our own interpretations. In this regard the theology of Questions on Doctrine was not much better than its predecessors. Instead of being servants of the Word, we make the Word our servant, employing it for our purposes—proving that we are right, and those who disagree with us are wrong.
http://progressiveadventism.com/200...estions-on-doctrine-and-the-adventist-future/