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

Interplanner

Newbie
Aug 5, 2012
11,882
113
near Olympic National Park
✟12,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
re: resurrection in the OT
You're way off in some other ways, Dogg.
1, resurrection is understood in the OT in the earliest written doc as I understand it, which is Job. "though worms...yet in my flesh" I ask you to give reasons, not rote repetition, why a person back then could not put 2 and 2 together and realize that God could also become human (having already been Melchizedek) and resurrect?'
2, there were resurrection myths flying around the ancient near east. Osis and Osiris; and Egyptian ones. It is not outside of the scope of their Hebrew neighbor's range of thinking.
3, Ecclesiastes, as Rabbi Prager says, is one of the most important Biblical statements about the after life, that is, there has to be individual and coherent resurrected after-life for this life's nonsense to make sense. It can't be reincarnation. It can't be cessation. Prager is an orthodox rabbi who does not accept that Jesus is Messiah; it is unthinkable to him because Messiah conquers and restores (hint, hint).
4, these things and their timing must force you to reconsider what you are saying about the most quoted NT passage about resurrection which is Ps 16. It is not Osirian, Egyptian or Hindi, it is a Hebrew concept! It is not as far back as the creation, and it has to be human and it has to be God (esp. if we are talking about David, lol). I'm starting to think you are Zoroastrian, seriously. That the resurrected god came from completely outside and after the OT.

Having heard these things would you please stop repeating your all-to-obvious position, and start giving some answer as to why it would be true. Repetition of it weakens it.

--INter
 
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,689
3,404
Non-dispensationalist
✟356,795.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
re: resurrection in the OT

Having heard these things would you please stop repeating your all-to-obvious position, and start giving some answer as to why it would be true. Repetition of it weakens it.

--INter

I have to keep repeating because I get no word of acceptance from you that the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and him crucified was kept a secret until after the resurrection. You are trying to circumvent that key point, in order to cling to your view that Abraham was "saved" during his lifetime.
Which he could not have been "saved", until his sins were washed away by the blood of Christ.

That in the OT, there was a common belief among Jews that there would be a resurrection someday is not the issue. Of they believed there was going to be a resurrection. But that is not the issue.

Doug
 
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,689
3,404
Non-dispensationalist
✟356,795.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
And you totally ignore all the proofs having been shown by me and others that the Messiah would die.

What particular OT verse that has the term "the Messiah" in it that says the Messiah would die for the sins of the world?

Doug
 
Upvote 0

Interplanner

Newbie
Aug 5, 2012
11,882
113
near Olympic National Park
✟12,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
re secret gospel
not a chance. You don't understand imputed righteousness. Abraham's faith was imputed to him as righteousness. Since I'm already exhausted by your hair-splitting between messiah, anointed, son, and lord, I won't bother showing you that having righteousness per se (Abraham example) and being saved are the same thing. That's why those who believe are his children--through faith that is apart from works. that's all a person needs to realize to be saved. "Lord, I believe; help me in my unbelief" will do just fine thanks.

Imputation means, like David in Ps 32 (numerous NT quotes) that Christ's rigteousness can be imputed back through time, too, because there is no one else's righteousness that can, for they are not infinite and perfect. In this sense, God is outside of time. that's why we can read of "the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world"--not because he was slain back then, but because it can be reckoned that way. For that matter, any time a person in the worship system of the Law realzied their offering was only a finite version of the infinite, they could see the Gospel.

Your position is very curious and untenable. I still have a hunch that all you are doing is exempting Israel from what it should have known, or the "compartmentalization" of the Bible (industrial strength!) so that there are two separate stories. The goofiest material I have ever read has been the people who said things like on the 1st day of the millenium all the Jews accept Christ as their savior, which once again puts all the weight on the person's decision, not the historic and defining event. Or maybe they said 'if all the Jews had accepted Christ when he came into Jerusalem, he wouldn't have been crucified' and other time-twistings. But they did this to "bridge" the two stories because they really are 10,000 feet of concrete apart in purpose.

I stand corrected by Ebedmelech about Amos 9; I way underestimated how early 'a remnant from all nations' was concept. What matters about the restoration of Israel is underway in the nations in the church as quoted by Acts 15.

D'ism, futurism and Judaism alike do not accept the authority of the NT over the OT.

--Inter
 
Upvote 0

Interplanner

Newbie
Aug 5, 2012
11,882
113
near Olympic National Park
✟12,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
re the resurrection
You're not absorbing the point. That person who was resurrected in the Psalms and prophecies was the Messiah, the Savior, the Mighty God, because of his indestructible life. The framework of the Law and Prophets demanded such a person come forward at some point in human history, without which life is meaningless.

Let me put it this way: orthodox Rabbi Prager will go as far as the necessity of God being just and justifier in Rom 3 but not say Christ was the enactment of that. But he got there from his Hebrew Bible knowledge. It demands such. It calls for such. It is not a question of whether this is demanded by Law and Prophets. But in his Judaism, for Christ to be that is unthinkable.

Could be your idea of saved and "sins washed by the blood of Jesus" is in the way of getting what Paul realized was there all the time in the Law and Prophets and answered in Christ. It needs to emphasize the legal element; the clearing up of sin as debt, not the moral changes that come after that. No wonder Paul said it was there all the time.

--Inter
 
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,689
3,404
Non-dispensationalist
✟356,795.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
re secret gospel
not a chance. You don't understand imputed righteousness. Abraham's faith was imputed to him as righteousness.

In order to be "saved" a person must have JESUS's perfect righteousness imputed to them.

Since I'm already exhausted by your hair-splitting between messiah, anointed, son, and lord, I won't bother showing you that having righteousness per se (Abraham example) and being saved are the same thing. That's why those who believe are his children--through faith that is apart from works. that's all a person needs to realize to be saved. "Lord, I believe; help me in my unbelief" will do just fine thanks.
It is "believing" in the Lord Jesus Christ and him crucified for forgiveness and propitiation of our sins, is what makes a person saved.

Imputation means, like David in Ps 32 (numerous NT quotes) that Christ's rigteousness can be imputed back through time, too, because there is no one else's righteousness that can, for they are not infinite and perfect. In this sense, God is outside of time.
Christ's imputed perfect righteousness was not available until Jesus was crucified.

that's why we can read of "the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world"--not because he was slain back then, but because it can be reckoned that way. For that matter, any time a person in the worship system of the Law realzied their offering was only a finite version of the infinite, they could see the Gospel.
Yes, and when was that statement revealed? It was not revealed until after the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Your position is very curious and untenable. I still have a hunch that all you are doing is exempting Israel from what it should have known, or the "compartmentalization" of the Bible (industrial strength!) so that there are two separate stories. The goofiest material I have ever read has been the people who said things like on the 1st day of the millenium all the Jews accept Christ as their savior, which once again puts all the weight on the person's decision, not the historic and defining event. Or maybe they said 'if all the Jews had accepted Christ when he came into Jerusalem, he wouldn't have been crucified' and other time-twistings. But they did this to "bridge" the two stories because they really are 10,000 feet of concrete apart in purpose.
Well, you are making strawman arguments. If you want to make an argument against what I write, then fine.... stop erasing my quote when you prepare your responses. Use the bracket-backslash-QUOTE-bracket codes to isolate the specific material. That's the way everyone else here does it.

Use the "QUOTE" button to reply to my posts, and not the "QR" button.



Doug
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0