Mat 24:22 "Unless those days had been cut short

[Interplanner]

As for the 1st point of #198, if the refusal by Israel (or I guess you could say its leaders, since that is what carried the day) is not for real, if they didn't really know what was going on and "Petered" out (denial), then the whole account of Christ is bogus and irrational and anti-history.

May I ask, why is it you don't just read the passage mentioned, and the NT interps of those passages, but read them as original. If I insist on the apostles interp, I think you are insisting on the mid-1st century temple Judaism interp! That's not the original meaning. They were Is 9, 53, Jer 23-33, Dan 9 (list of 7 accomplishments of Messiah).

As for John, you've got to be kidding. Only a billion lambs had been sacrificed for--what was that called again--the big annual day--oh yeah, DAY OF ATONEMENT. So how does the average working candidate for baptism by John come out and end up thinking he's talking about chimpanzees on Mars when John says 'behold the Lamb of God'?

--Inter

 

[Biblewriter]

re atonement and righteousness:
I do not think for a minute that people reading about atonement for sins in Is 53, about the LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS in Jer 23-33, about Abraham's faith counting as righteousness, about the Melchizedek the King who was righteousnes and a priest, about the Anointed one atoning for iniquity, would have any doubt that Abraham believed the exact thing Paul taught!

And here I thought you were the one that wanted to interpret everything that way the Apostles interpreted them. There can be zero doubt that Paul clearly taught that the mystery had not been revealed to past ages, and that none of the princes of the world knew about the basic gospel. But Surprises never cease.

The salvation that was coming was not a detour or a side story or surprise to what was supposed to come to Israel. It was the fulfillment. This is why the resurrection of Christ is "the fulfillment of everything promised to the fathers" in Acts 13's sermon. That's because it is proof that we are justified from our sins; it could not have happened without the Father's approval of the accomplishment of Christ. It, not a restored kingdom of David, was where Judaism was headed.

You speak as if we held that salvation through the blood of Jesus was an afterthought. This could not be further from the truth. Every dispensationalist believes and teaches that the salvation of all mankind was the central plan of God from the very beginning.

When I debate this with BW he breaks into 'that's about salvation' or 'that's a salvation verse.' Meaning: it has nothing to do with Israel's "real" promises.

Again, you twist my words in exactly the same way that you twist scripture. I never said, or even hinted such an idea.

But what you consistently refuse to admit as even a possibility, is that the scriptures clearly reveal a distinct plan for what will happen on this earth after the church has been physically removed.

There can be legitimate debate about the timing of the rapture. But anyone who denies the fact of the rapture is denying explicitly stated scripture. But the Bible also tells a great many things that will happen after the rapture. You deny these things, but they are there, just the same.

Or the "real" meaning of Rom 11 is about the restored Davidic kingdom.

I demonstrated that in that passage the Holy Spirit was speaking of the reality of the physical restoration of Israel. You rejected what I said about this, but you could not answer it, or you would have.

That has always been the imagined detour of the "church" that does not think the whole business was headed toward and designed for and shaped for the mission work to the nations (Acts 13's quote of Is 49).

This is not a detour. It is simply a matter of believing all the Bible, and not just part of it, as you do.

 

[Douggg]

As for the 1st point of #198, if the refusal by Israel (or I guess you could say its leaders, since that is what carried the day) is not for real, if they didn't really know what was going on and "Petered" out (denial), then the whole account of Christ is bogus and irrational and anti-history.

I don't understand what you are saying.

May I ask, why is it you don't just read the passage mentioned, and the NT interps of those passages, but read them as original. If I insist on the apostles interp, I think you are insisting on the mid-1st century temple Judaism interp! That's not the original meaning. They were Is 9, 53, Jer 23-33, Dan 9 (list of 7 accomplishments of Messiah).

What I am insisting is that before the resurrection the disciples would have had the same concept of the messiah back then, as modern day Judaism does now. The Jews (Judaism) did not accept the gospel of the risen Christ. They didn't then and don't now believe that someone else can have the sins of others transferred to another person.

By knowing the messiah type that Judaism (Israel) is looking for, it is then possible to understand the nature of the Antichrist who will be a false messiah - in their (Judaism's) concept of the messiah - just as they thought Simon Bar Kochba was, in error of course

As for John, you've got to be kidding. Only a billion lambs had been sacrificed for--what was that called again--the big annual day--oh yeah, DAY OF ATONEMENT. So how does the average working candidate for baptism by John come out and end up thinking he's talking about chimpanzees on Mars when John says 'behold the Lamb of God'?
--Inter

Actually on the day of Atonement, the sins of all Israel were placed on the head of a goat, and the goat was lead into the wilderness and set free. Unfortunately, one time the goat wandered back into town, so the Jews began the practice of taking the goat and shoving him off a cliff.... .

Jesus being the Lamb of God is in reference to the passover Lamb, which death passes over when the blood was smeared over and around the doorframe. Passover is a spring feast. The day of Atonement is a fall feast.

btw. the term Atonement is a Christian word created by William Tynsdale combining "At one ment" with God. The Jewish version would be Yom Kippur.

Anyway, back to the term Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

It could have easily been understood that Jesus compared to a lamb as him being very peaceful. And taking away the sins of the world could have easily been understood that he would teach the Jews how to obey the Torah - which what the Jews nowadays are expecting the messiah to do, to teach them how to live the 615 laws of Judaism.

There was no way from that expression to extrapolate that Jesus would die on a cross and be resurrected on the third day.

You are viewing the scriptures after 2000 years of Christian teaching and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit who testify's of Jesus and leads into all truth.

The disciples and the Jews back then before the resurrection didn't have those difference makers. They were not indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Which you need to project yourself to being in their shoes back at the time before the resurrection - to correctly understand that the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and him crucified as being a secret since the beginning of the world .... until after the resurrection.

Doug



.

 

[Interplanner]

re: fake refusal
If the many rejections of Jesus were by Jewish opposition that didnt' actually understand what they were opposing, then how could it be a rejection? Take the first in Luke 4. Notice that the first line is the Spirit before the resurrection, before half of Christ's public ministry, heck, before the NT and the IT! Oh, but they didn't know he was speaking of himself. So they all shook hands and went home. See you next sabbath, blah, blah, blah. Your theory turns it into a non-issue. Over and over and over.

You must be confusing cognition with the Spirit's affirmative cooperation in a person. Well, a person can grasp the meaning and reject it, as they did. But the absorption of it has to be real.

Your treatment on Lamb of God needs quite a bit of work.

I'm not reading these passages 2000 years later if there is meaning extracted from OT passages already there. And there certainly was. Even as simple as "even the winds and the waves obey him" was a reference to Psalms which repeated the whole theme of the victory of the Creator over the tohu wa-bohu of Gen 1:2, so they were in effect saying, the Creator God of Genesis and others of the godhead were just hear in the boat, telling the forces of nature what to do. I'm putting no more into than that, I'm not injecting anything else. Actually, the more you see such meaning is already there, the more you understand the hostile reaction.

In Mt 3:16 he has to baptise to fulfill all righteousness. Oh, but of course, this has nothing to do with Dan 9's list of 7 things accomplished by Messaih. I mean, there is just no cultural reach at all back that far. He might as well have said "I need to be a nice person." And God forbid it reach clear back to Gen 15 when Abraham knew he needed to have righeousness imputed or transfered to him. Now both components (righteousness and imputation) would just be ridiculous. No wonder Jesus found a dividing line between Judaism and Abraham, and guess who was on the same side of the divide with Abraham!

You're trying to preserve a line of thought to a future restored kingdom by saying that no salvation or justification was known about before the resurrection so that Israel gets offered one thing and believers get another. You'll have to take that up with Paul because he says its everywhere back there. The real work of the decisive generation between the resurrection and the DofJ was to try to get Israel to realize that and get on with their mission to the nations. Unfortunately, too many of them stayed to join the freedom fight.

--Inter

 

[Douggg]

re: fake refusal
If the many rejections of Jesus were by Jewish opposition that didnt' actually understand what they were opposing, then how could it be a rejection? Take the first in Luke 4. Notice that the first line is the Spirit before the resurrection, before half of Christ's public ministry, heck, before the NT and the IT! Oh, but they didn't know he was speaking of himself. So they all shook hands and went home. See you next sabbath, blah, blah, blah. Your theory turns it into a non-issue. Over and over and over.

Who are you responding your post to? Me (Douggg) or Biblewriter?

What are you talking about?

You must be confusing cognition with the Spirit's affirmative cooperation in a person. Well, a person can grasp the meaning and reject it, as they did. But the absorption of it has to be real.

Speak English.

Your treatment on Lamb of God needs quite a bit of work.

I know that the sins of Israel were not transferred to a Lamb on the Day of Atonement. I offer that you go to the templeinstitute.org site and go through their study presentations on the Day of Atonement proceedings. Start here at this link and click through the series of "next's" at the bottom of each page....
that's a goat not a lamb. (and don't convert to Judaism along the way...being a Gentry-ite is bad enough )

The Temple Institute: Yom Kippur in the Holy Temple

I'm not reading these passages 2000 years later if there is meaning extracted from OT passages already there.

The meaning was extracted when Jesus opened the understanding of the scriptures to the disciples AFTER the resurrection. You, yourself, have been exposed to the culmination of 2000 years of Christian teaching that the disciples and the Jews did not have prior to the resurrection.

And there certainly was. Even as simple as "even the winds and the waves obey him" was a reference to Psalms which repeated the whole theme of the victory of the Creator over the tohu wa-bohu of Gen 1:2, so they were in effect saying, the Creator God of Genesis and others of the godhead were just hear in the boat, telling the forces of nature what to do. I'm putting no more into than that, I'm not injecting anything else. Actually, the more you see such meaning is already there, the more you understand the hostile reaction.

You would not even know about "even the winds and the waves obey him" if you didn't have Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, laid in your lap, which were written as the result of the revelation of the gospel Lord Jesus Christ and him crucified - coming AFTER the resurrection, which those writings became the basis of the new testament scriptures which you are now referring to.

In Mt 3:16 he has to baptise to fulfill all righteousness. Oh, but of course, this has nothing to do with Dan 9's list of 7 things accomplished by Messaih.

Daniel 9 doesn't say a word about the Messiah being resurrected, does it?

I mean, there is just no cultural reach at all back that far. He might as well have said "I need to be a nice person." And God forbid it reach clear back to Gen 15 when Abraham knew he needed to have righeousness imputed or transfered to him. Now both components (righteousness and imputation) would just be ridiculous. No wonder Jesus found a dividing line between Judaism and Abraham, and guess who was on the same side of the divide with Abraham!

You are reading as someone who has accepted Christ and have received the Holy Spirit. Find someone else who is NOT a Christian, not accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior - and see if they make those same arguments.

You're trying to preserve a line of thought to a future restored kingdom by saying that no salvation or justification was known about before the resurrection so that Israel gets offered one thing and believers get another.

The gospel of Salvation for eternal life through the shed blood of Jesus's dying on the cross, for the propitiation for sins, and his resurrection was keep a secret since the world began...until after the resurrection. And that the messiah's role to restore the kingdom of Israel is secondary to God's plan to save all mankind from the power sin. Not that the restoration of the kingdom of Israel would not be fulfilled and not that the Jews and Jerusalem would not eventually welcome Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and God's promised great King of Israel.

You'll have to take that up with Paul because he says its everywhere back there. The real work of the decisive generation between the resurrection and the DofJ was to try to get Israel to realize that and get on with their mission to the nations. Unfortunately, too many of them stayed to join the freedom fight.

That is not a biblical fact, but Gentry-ism, I assume.


Doug

 

[Interplanner]

re: fake rejections.
If you knew it was wrong to steal and knew the terms of imprisonment for robbing and bank, and robbed a bank and drove off, and were pulled over by police, you could deny that you had done it. If you were someone else, but had a similar car, and had no idea that had happened that day in your town, and were pulled over, you would be at a total loss. The audience of Jesus who rejected him were not in the latter category. You sound like they are!

Mk 3:6. They went out and planned to kill Jesus. They had just had 4 proofs of his divinity but it was not combined with the Spirit for obedience and acceptance. That is cognition, but not obedience. That is cognition but not submission. A person can have cognition of meaning, but refuse it. Not in your scheme.

I've read 10 pages of Gentry. I have read most of Rabbis Cassuto, Sandmel, Dr. F.F. Bruce, Brinsmead, W. Keller, Rabbi Cornfeld on Josephus' JEWISH WAR, Metger on Greek text, Goodrick on NT Greek. As I said, I am not a theologian. I am a historian who consults archeologists, rabbis, linguists and historians. As for the mission theme, the best treatment of it that I know if is the 3 month class called Perspectives in Missions used in many Bible and community churches for credit. The beginning theology is just this: that the early church was not just "saved" but missional because deep, deep OT themes were being resolved. The mission did not just show up the day of Pentecost or somesuch.

Mt 3:16 was connected to Messiah's list of 7 accomplishments because of righeousness, not resurrection.

The undercurrent of Acts is to get Israel to be missionaries to the nations. They do this through their Messah. That is why it is the very issue of the follow up of the sermon in Acts 13, quoting Is 49. that is why Amos 9 is quoted in Acts 15's conference. Solve the law problem, yes, but let's not forget what this whole thing is about. This is why Paul wants everyone "as I am except for these chains" (Acts 26). this is why he is so frustrated with Israel, and with the Jews who have been let back in to Rome who won't wake up (Acts 28).

I have no idea what your 2nd to last paragraph meant. Check the double negatives of "Not that..." I think you mean just that there will be a restored kingdom.

BTW, we had a discussion someplace here this week about Rom 16:25 and the long ages. It's not "since creation" and 2 places to see that are Eph 1 and 2 Pet 3. But regardless, something that is hidden raises the question hidden to whom? In 1 Cor 1 that would not be everybody, just the leaders and rulers. Rom 16, Col 1, and Eph 3 only refer to a hiddenness since the prophets, which is interesting because if a future glorious restoration was going to be announced for after the 586 destruction, that's where it would be announced. Paul is saying the actual fulfillment of all that is not literal and is in Christ and his people. The resurrection fulfills all the promises to the fathers (Acts 13).

I'm not reading Is 6, 53, Jer 23-33, Dan 9 with glasses from centuries later. Everything is back there. Imputed righteousness through the Seed, and the Seed is the same as Gen. 3. No need to tell me Judaism doesn't accept imputed righteousness. Paul said it was back there, which pretty much tells me Judaism at his time and now do/will not accept it. Paul resolved the moral dilemma of David by showing that the righteousness he was talking about as imputed was from Ps 32!

Speaking of Psalms the wind and the wave item was from Psalms too, as you know. People reading that (or any of the Psalms and Job and Isaiah about 'God's battle with Leviathan') would know that the theme goes way back before Abraham. Abraham knew that Melchizedek was an eternal divine priest forever, predating Abraham, Judaism.

I really don't get what you would do with "they testify of Me" and I'm losing interest. He was there at Abraham, at Sodom, with Joshua, and so on.

--Inter

 

[Douggg]

I have no idea what your 2nd to last paragraph meant. Check the double negatives of "Not that..." I think you mean just that there will be a restored kingdom.

Yes, I know. I was going to fix it when I previewed my post, but I decided to leave it as is in order to communicate with you on your level.........


Doug

 

[Biblewriter]

Mk 3:6. They went out and planned to kill Jesus. They had just had 4 proofs of his divinity but it was not combined with the Spirit for obedience and acceptance. That is cognition, but not obedience. That is cognition but not submission. A person can have cognition of meaning, but refuse it. Not in your scheme.

If you are right about this, then what did Jesus mean when he prayed, "father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"?

The undercurrent of Acts is to get Israel to be missionaries to the nations. They do this through their Messah. That is why it is the very issue of the follow up of the sermon in Acts 13, quoting Is 49. that is why Amos 9 is quoted in Acts 15's conference. Solve the law problem, yes, but let's not forget what this whole thing is about. This is why Paul wants everyone "as I am except for these chains" (Acts 26). this is why he is so frustrated with Israel, and with the Jews who have been let back in to Rome who won't wake up (Acts 28).

And here we have the basic difference between what you are saying and what we are saying. You keep on about what you imagine is the "undercurrent" in Acts and other New Testament passages. While we keep on talking about what the scriptures actually say, as opposed to "undercurrents" we think we see there.

I'm not reading Is 6, 53, Jer 23-33, Dan 9 with glasses from centuries later. Everything is back there. Imputed righteousness through the Seed, and the Seed is the same as Gen. 3. No need to tell me Judaism doesn't accept imputed righteousness. Paul said it was back there, which pretty much tells me Judaism at his time and now do/will not accept it. Paul resolved the moral dilemma of David by showing that the righteousness he was talking about as imputed was from Ps 32!

Imputed righteousness was indeed there. And the cleansing of sins by blood was there. But the fact that that cleansing would come through the shedding of the blood of an innocent human victim was not there. Nor was the resurrection of that victim.

I really don't get what you would do with "they testify of Me" and I'm losing interest. He was there at Abraham, at Sodom, with Joshua, and so on.

--Inter

The leaders of the Jews were blind to what their Messiah would do in his first coming, because they choose to only believe the parts about his coming in power and glory. But you remain blind to what Jesus will do in his second coming because you choose to only believe the parts about his coming as the suffering servant. These are equivalent blindnesses, both caused by prejudice. Theirs was a prejudice in favor of Israel, and yours is a prejudice against Israel. Bot both of these blindnesses are caused by prejudice. And both of them have their root in one simple principle, the principle of willful ignorance.

The scriptures indeed said that "the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." It also warned us that in the last days scoffers would come, "saying, where is the promise of his coming?"

 

[Interplanner]

Hey Doug, the Spirit of God does not lead us to insult each other. I hope you will grow in that. I will be sarcastic about an idea, but not a person. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and did not generalize that you "always" write that way. More Spirit, please.

--Inter

 

[Interplanner]

re: they don't know what they are doing
there's always the law of unintended consequences, isn't there?
There is plenty of indication they knew what they were doing. They were stopping Jesus from saying he was the fulfillment of the restoration of Israel. Not because he was wrong about that but because they didn't want his version.
*So Jn 8, when they tried to stone him. They tried it because he said he was greater than Abraham, and wasa the Son, and apparently used YHWH about himself. They knew what they were doing, and did not want his version of Messiah.
*When he comes triumphant into Jerusalem and the right songs are sung of him, the leaders tell him to shut them up. They knew and did not accept. Those were song supposed to be reserved for "triumphant" Messiah, which he was, if they could 'ido' it (to see truly, to understand). They were the willfully ignorant ones.

But at the end of the day, he has more grace than they do, than any of us. In his raw human emotion and love for them, he is willing to say they don't know, even though he knows they know. Always willing to forgive. Amazing.

--Inter

 

[Interplanner]

re Scriptures
Well there are 6 right there BW, but I guess they are all imaginary. I'll see if I can find some other imaginary ones.
*There's Pentecost. A clever way to get the message to the nations really quick.
*The end of the wicked ways 3:26. One of the wicked ways in the condemnations of Mt 23 is the un-missionaries. Now they could be the real thing.
*70 sent out to practice. Gee, I wonder...if they could have been practicing for later? To Samaria? to the ends of the earth? Hmmm.
*Acts 1:8. for those fixated on the restored kingdom, a broad scoped answer. Power. Power to go to the ends of the earth. That is the shape of the book of Acts. Luke includes it here so that at his defense, Paul's audience would know it was the plan all along. So in the 1st generation missionaries get from Spain to India, Ethiopia to Scythia. Not bad.
*the capstone 4:11-12. when you are building a new "building" as the apostles were. You have to have the baseline. that would be Christ. The new building was to grow and reach all nations, and did in many respects. Eph 2. Notice that the capstone is named for universal basis for salvation. Again, starting from and rooted in Israel but going to the nations. AT least in my "imagination."
*Acts 8. Ethiopian. Golly, why put this in? God just ups and moves Phillip to get the Gospel to Africa. It's too bad, really. there could have been an exciting episode about the restored kingdom of Israel.
*Cornelius. Apostles keep flying around all over, now we've got one hammering one of the Roman leaders. And a miraculous vision about how the constrictions of the law aren't to get in the way of the mission. go ahead and sit with them and eat. then it gets really good in 10:35 that all this means God accepts people from all nations by his grace. Grace is the gift of Christ for us. "I now realize..." says Peter. Its too bad all that restored kingdom stuff was clogging up his brain like hormones. also could we please notice v43 for Dougg's sake: all prophets testify that he who believes in him recieves the forgiveness of sins. That's all, and prophets, and testimonial, and by faith, and the forgiveness of sins. But if course, it's "imaginary" Peter. so I guess I'll have to keep looking.
*The outpouring of the Spirit was to show to Jewish circumcised-based believers that God had granted repentance to the nations (11:18). Unfortunately, "even then they will not listen to me" (Dt 28 and Is 28 in 1 Cor 14, in the "imaginary" version).
*the message of encouragement. If I was a dispersed follower of Judaism, and a guest from the home country wandered into synagogue, I'd like to hear something encouraging too! Was it the restored kingdom? No. that had "served its purpose in its generation." Acts 13:36. So what is encouraging? that the real mission had arrived and they could be part of it too, like Paul! The promises to Israel have been fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ (32). Forgivenss and justifcation have arrived, which the prophets said would not be believed. Dang, those prophet guys were red hot! This message is the grace of God (43). Paul typically spoke to Jews first to create more believers and missionaries like himself, or to get financial support for more mission travel. To me, the reaction from 45 on is bizarre to me. It can only be explained by the veil. The negative reaction of the Jews is because they want the restored kingdom and superiority, not because the emphasis of Paul is untrue.
*special note on quoting Is 49. You is singular. It is Christ first. In Christ, we also accomplish the same thing. It is not Israel. Dougg please note the proximity of this to ch 53. This is what the thing was about all along, said Peter.
*Isn't it odd, that besides capitulating on circumcision, Peter in Gal 1:9 was classed as one who should go to the Jews. After all the visions and tongues and everything. "Staying close to home" is a strong impulse. But he ended up getting lashed by Paul, because he should have continued on in the mission to the nations.
*please note a little detail in Acts 26:23. "...as the first to rise from the dead, (Christ) would proclaim light to his own people and the Gentiles". This is what those who have risen from the dead do. (There is a sense in which believers are this developed in Rom 6 and Col 3). It is also a restatement of Is 49 and of Acts 13's quote of that. It is what believers are for and how they do this through Christ. Festus shouted Paul down angrily about this because he wanted to be part of the restored kingdom. The question Paul says, for these guys, is 'do you believe the prophets?' Wow, why would he ask that. It's because they "all testify that forgiveness of sins is to be taken to the nations."
*Paul wants everyone like himself, except for the chains. Guess what that means.
*Effective or not, Paul quotes Is 6 about Israel because they are repeating the failure to believe this is what the Law and the Prophets have always said. Instead Judaism, says it doesn't mean that. that's what reminds me of Dougg's position. Like Paul, I am "afflicted" or "affected" by the apostles teaching. But Paul has a chain because of the hope of Israel (28:20). meaning, because his understanding is not about the restored kingdom, but rather the mission, the friction led to hearings at this level. BW is right, as I have said before, Judaism, futurism and D'ism do not accept the authority of the NT. They all read the OT as though the NT never happened.

--Inter

 

[Interplanner]

re the human-shed blood was not there
Everything pointed to it, including the incomleted sacrifice of Isaac. The human Seed of the woman had to be mortally wounded. Just put 2 and 2 together. A human Seed would one day accomplish what the Yom Kippur goat pointed to.
*As for resurrection, there are many similar things that point to it. The most important NT quote of a Psalm about resurrection is 16, the Holy one does not see corruption.
*this will be a bit out of category, but please note why Is 55 is quoted and how close to ch 53. The promises to David are transfered to Christ. These are found in the resurrection (which Acts 13:33 had just said, with 30). This is confirmed by Acts 15 quoting Amos 9 on this topic. also note (Dougg especially) the accolade about the Lord in Amos 9 and the variants:
"...who does these things / that have been known for ages" or
".../ known to the Lord for ages is his work"
'gnosta' is in most of the manuscripts and does not match the singular Lord, but the plural or collective plural world. The (collective plural) world knows either the Lord or the works/things. That is the text question--whether the world knew the Lord or the words for ages (Metzger). Aleph, B, C and Psi show the 1st/prefered. papyrus46 is not a factor here. Actually no majors support the 2nd reading.
*but the 2nd reading still makes a point: that God planned all along to reach the nations, which is shown many times.
*it is really strange to me that denial in Judaism would rise precisely when Isaiah is clearest about what would happen. I guess that's the way denial works, and I should not be. If 53 is not about an individual suffering, bleeding for atonement, then the Bible is full of Nietzsche.

--Inter

 

[Interplanner]

re prejudice against Israel:
BW would you please knock it off. The prejudice is against a restored legal kingdom. I don't find that in the NT. That's what you think is supposed to be therre. I find all visions about that transfered to what actually happened in the NT era, starting with Peter saying/offering the "times of refreshing" to Israel in Acts 3. Not a restored legal state (I know of no friction with Rome about this in any documentation), but the mission. It would, of course, helped Israel the state at that time to be about the mission, not to freedom-fight for the land, but they didn't believe the apostles did they? there was plenty offered to Israel (to Jewish believers) to do in the mission--like Paul! Along with persecutions. Judaism at that time thought the glorious state would be restored "as they earnestly serve God day and night" but Paul said it already was, and that was the rub. 26:6. If you subtract that, there is no issue going on; you make the NT vacant, void, neutered, vacuous. It would be like LES MISERABLES without Cosette. A non-story. "It is because of this hope that the Jews are accusing me...(about) God raising the dead." (they shut down all such talk, because a person had to be perfect, have God's righteousness to be raised from the dead, and the promises of God went with him).

--Inter

 

[Interplanner]

re denying the promise of his coming
this is too foolish to refute. Shame on you. You glom a package of Judaic detail with His coming. It is called futurism. I do not. I just have the 2nd coming.

As empirical proof of what I'm saying, this planet could have been toast last year when a CME from our sun reached out further than our orbit. It happened to go the opposite direction into space. Are we listening?

--Inter

 

[Douggg]

it is really strange to me that denial in Judaism would rise precisely when Isaiah is clearest about what would happen. I guess that's the way denial works, and I should not be. If 53 is not about an individual suffering, bleeding for atonement, then the Bible is full of Nietzsche.--Inter

And where in Isaiah 53 does it say the suffering servant is the messiah?

In previous verses in Isaiah, the text says Israel - my servant.

Isaiah 41:8-9
But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham,
my friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest
corners, saying to you, “You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off.”
Isaiah 44:1
But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen!
Isaiah 44:21
Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for you are my servant; I formed you;
you are my servant; O Israel, you will not be forgotten by me.
Isaiah 45:4
For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I called you by your name,
I name you, though you do not know me.
Isaiah 48:20
Go out from Babylon, flee from Chaldea, declare this with a shout of joy, proclaim
it, send it out to the end of the earth; say, “The Lord has redeemed his servant Jacob!”
Isaiah 49:3
And he said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.”

Since it does not say in Isaiah 53 that the messiah (the promised King of Israel) is the suffering servant. And all those previous places in Isaiah referring to Israel as my servant. How were the disciples supposed to know that Jesus was going to be the fulfillment of Isaiah 53 the suffering servant - and not "my servant, Israel" as the suffering servant - ahead of time?

Doug

 

[Interplanner]

You are too compartmentalized. That's Aristotelian. You need to be more Hebraic: holistic, unified, fluid, dynamic/active.

--Inter

 

[Douggg]

You are too compartmentalized. That's Aristotelian. You need to be more Hebraic: holistic, unified, fluid, dynamic/active.

--Inter

Compartmentalization, as in the defense industry contracting for secret projects, is a method for keeping something a secret... which the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and him crucified was a secret since the beginning of time - until after the resurrection. A person could look at the scriptures as having been compartmentalized, in regards to the overall gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and him crucified. So I don't take exception to your accusation.

Chuck Missler has a video on You Tube in which he speaks about his defense contractor days - when they were given contracts, but didn't know how their contract fitted in with any program. He spoke extensively on "Compartmentalization" as being the means to keep the secrecy of the project from one contractor knowing what other contractors on the same project, who they were, and what they were working on.


Doug

 

[Interplanner]

Good for Chuck. I read what Isaiah and Psalms said about Genesis and what Paul said about Isaiah and Psalms. I suppose in your theory it was wrong for Isaiah and Psalms and Jeremiah to say anything about Genesis.

See the text notes on Amos 9 at reponses to BW on 'human-shed blood was not there' at #212 above. (btw, I forgot that everyone uses Joseph (as in Gen 39+) as a 'type' of Christ, to support the shedding of human blood, except compartmentalists).

When Aristotle discusses a horse, he kills it and dissects it, and lists all the separate parts, and has a measuring stick handy. when a Hebrew prophet refers to a horse, it is galloping, snorting, rearing, demonstrating the power of God (because it is larger than human), providing a full-life, full-sensory impact. Your theology of Messiah is too fragmented to qualify for what the NT says, which is only what the OT also says if you are observant, for ex., Ps 110: the Lord said to my Lord. Or Ps 16, the Holy One will not see decay.

The method of including Gentiles (faith) is what Paul's mystery is about in Eph 3, Col 1, 2, Rom 16. That it was apart from Law. It is no longer a mystery. The proof for this were the incoming tide of Gentiles, but the doctrinal proofs were OT quotes in their ordinary meaning: Is 55:3, 49:6; Amos 9:11, 12 (totally ordinary); Hab 2:4; Gen. 15:6; Ps 32:1,2; Gen. 17:5; Gen. 15:5; 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; Dt. 27:6; Lev. 18:5; Dt. 21:23; Gen. 12:7; 13:15; 24:7; Is 54:7; Gen. 21:10; because the Spirit of God works through the word of God (2 Tim 3:15--knowledge of OT Scriptures since childhood).

--Inter

 

[Douggg]

Good for Chuck. I read what Isaiah and Psalms said about Genesis and what Paul said about Isaiah and Psalms. I suppose in your theory it was wrong for Isaiah and Psalms and Jeremiah to say anything about Genesis.

I am saying it is wrong to say anyone could have concluded ahead of the resurrection the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and him crucified. That's not going to change no matter how many ways you try to say that was not kept a secret from the beginning of the world.

Your theology of Messiah is too fragmented to qualify for what the NT says, which is only what the OT also says if you are observant, for ex., Ps 110: the Lord said to my Lord. Or Ps 16, the Holy One will not see decay.

It doesn't say the Holy One is the messiah, the promised Great King of Israel. You have the benefit of the the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and him crucified having been revealed. That revelation was not understood ahead of the resurrection. By now, after all this exchanges between yourself, me (Douggg), and Biblewriter, you should have come to realize it.


Doug

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I am saying it is wrong to say anyone could have concluded ahead of the resurrection the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and him crucified. That's not going to change no matter how many ways you try to say that was not kept a secret from the beginning of the world.

It doesn't say the Holy One is the messiah, the promised Great King of Israel. You have the benefit of the the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and him crucified having been revealed. That revelation was not understood ahead of the resurrection. By now, after all this exchanges between yourself, me (Douggg), and Biblewriter, you should have come to realize it.


Doug

And you totally ignore all the proofs having been shown by me and others that the Messiah would die, rise, and be glorified, as the Firstborn Son of God of the human being kind: meaning He was to come in flesh as a Kinsman/Redeemer.
Then, YHWH is the Ga'al =Kinsman/Redeemer who puts on the garments of Salvation/Yeshua, to come as Kinsman/Redeemer in Isaiah 59.

Then, Abraham saw His Day, and rejoiced in it, as I posted to you and you ignored.Abraham saw His Day when he offered Isaac as his "only begotten son", which translates to the Greek "Monogenes". Abraham saw His Day and rejoiced in it, and named Mount Moriah "YHWH [shall be] SEEN -[in his image Tselem], or, [as our Peace]Shalom...and so, Mount Moriah, becomes "Jerusalem" by Abraham "Seeing and rejoicing in Jesus" Day".

Psalm 118 -The Day the LORD made -from the foundation of the world- is described as the Day our God is bound to the horns of the altar [tied to the cross, and slain] as the Atonement for our righteousness and is become our Salvation/Yeshua.

Then, you ignore the prophet Enoch, the seventh from Adam, whose writings are called "Scripture", by Jesus and whose writings were used by those who sought "Truth and Wisdom" in Israel, even in the days of Jesus; who told of the Son of Man's death and resurrection and ascension and the Salvation to come in His name, when He raised the dead.