What is distinct from Judaism?

[Interplanner]

Is Christian eschatology the exact same as Judaism? Was anything new or distinct in what the apostles said, or was it already there? If it was already there, why is there an NT? Why can't Paul "meet" them in Acts 26's hearing?

 

[Danoh]

Is Christian eschatology the exact same as Judaism? Was anything new or distinct in what the apostles said, or was it already there? If it was already there, why is there an NT? Why can't Paul "meet" them in Acts 26's hearing?

For the benefit of those your book learned reasoning might confuse, the answer to your misinformed question is no, nothing new where the Twelve and their Messianic Judaism and its Promises INCLUDING the Land.

Whereas with that new Apostle - Paul, yes, ALL was new, thus, the resulting confusion of that on the part of those remaining of the Twelve.

Gainsay, rather than explore this, God's Two-Fold Purpose, all you wish, Inter, and your book learned kind, you just prove to those you would delude that you only explore your deluded view, and that, from within your delusion.

 

[PhillipLaSpino]

Interplanner asked, "Is Christian eschatology the exact same as Judaism

Phil replies, "The Jews thought when Messiah came, He would destroy all their enemies and free them from any further bondage. They never accepted Jesus as Messiah for many reasons. They were looking for a King, a man of renown, a man with the attributes of David, Joshua, Solomon, Moses, Abraham combined, a man of power and authority. The Jews knew nothing of the coming tribulation the destruction of their Temple. They knew nothing of the Gentiles being grafted into the promises made to them by Jehovah.

You asked, "Was anything new or distinct in what the apostles said, or was it already there?"

Phil replies, "The apostles were just as unaware of who Jesus was, from where He came and who sent him, even to the cross. Who He was and why He came was not understood by them even to the end. The Jews were still under the old economy and law, they never understood fully the teachings of Jesus, including the apostles. Luke 18:34, "And they (the apostles) understood none of these things: ---- neither knew they the things which were spoken."

You asked, "If it was already there, why is there an NT?

Phil replies, of course some of it was already there but not the whole of it. The O.T. prophets were given shadows, unclear images, and clouded mirrors. When Christ came, after he sent the Holy Spirit and when Paul was appointed to go to the Gentiles, everything became clear and real; the mirrors were wiped clean, the truth was presented not in shadows, but in clear fulfillment of events; as clear as one would examine an object they hold in their hand.

No Jew understood the O.T. prophesies of the coming of God in the flesh, 1 Tim.3:16, K.J.B. nor of his death on the cross; or of the grafting in of the Gentiles, or of the rapture of the bride of Christ; and sadly they still do not understand that the 70th week of Daniel still lay ahead, just as sure as any promise or threat the Lord had ever made to them or anyone else.

You asked, "Why can't Paul "meet" them in Acts 26's hearing?"

Phil "I don't understand your question."

 

[Danoh]

Phil, your 2nd paragraph contradicts what the Spirit said through John the Baptist's father, in Luke 1:74, see verse 67.

 

[Interplanner]

Please read your posts one additional time Danoh. I just don't know what the point is that you are making above.

I don't know how anyone can miss the entirely new Christocentric fulfillment of things. Many times Jesus said something like 'you've heard... but I tell you' and some of these were about prophecy they had thought settled.

As for God's Two-Fold Purpose, would you please give one passage in support. I don't mean a proof text; I mean a whole chapter. I suppose you'd offer Rom 11, but that would miss the current or present prodding that is in it (it is not a prediction as much as a prodding, and the last Israel he mentioned about the Redeemer to Zion was the "other" one).

I don't believe 2P2P because I avoid its books.

 

[Interplanner]

Phils:
The Jews knew nothing of the coming tribulation the destruction of their Temple. They knew nothing of the Gentiles being grafted into the promises made to them by Jehovah.

Sure they did. It grieved Daniel. Caiaphas thought he could delay it. Josephus was aware of it. The 490 years were ending.

They knew since Abraham that promises to Abraham included the nations. There is never any doubt. The question is whether they liked that, and most of Judaism did not. They stressed earned merit and deserved gifts.

 

[Interplanner]

The mystery of Rom 11 is not the grafting or the church or a future Redeemer to Zion. The mystery is that they are partially blind/hard. One would have thought they'd be 100% on board. But the Gospel is spirit, and they are flesh as much as we are. So they see Abraham justified by faith but refuse to see that that is what the promised gospel is.

 

[Interplanner]

Phil:
shadows, unclear images, and clouded mirrors.

Not according to BW! It's precise and fulfilled exactly and explicitly.

 

[Interplanner]

It is very hard to take the lack of knowledge of Christ in stride with what Paul says about all the prophets in Rom 1 (Moses being one).

Paul's message and Judaism could not agree or mesh or harmonize in Acts 26. They are looking for their hope to be fulfilled; he says it is already in Christ. "Meet" was a metaphor for finding unifying beliefs.

 

[PhillipLaSpino]

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Danoh good to hear from you! The O.T. was full of information concerning the coming of the Jewish Messiah, this including Zechariah prophesy. See Isa.52-53, Psalms 22 etc. But the question is, did the Jewish people understand it? They expected a King, not a victim, a slight oversight on their part. And right to the end, the Jewish priests, scribes, etc. including the apostles did not understand that the Messiah, Jesus Christ was “God manifest in the flesh” and that He was to be the final blood sacrifice for them and for all men. They appear not to have understood what had been written, especially where He was to be sacrificed for them. Even Paul appeared to expect the Lord to return in a short time. Now, some 2000 + years have passed and the Jews are still without a King and High Priest, and the body of Christ is still without the Groom. [/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']After the cross when Jesus came to them in the upper room, then they realized He had risen from the grave; than they understood, this is all I was attempting to convey. [/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']I have to go away for a few days; will not be able to respond to any further comments. [/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']God bless, [/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Phil [/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Interplanner, what's bw? [/FONT]

 

[Yekcidmij]

Is Christian eschatology the exact same as Judaism? Was anything new or distinct in what the apostles said, or was it already there? If it was already there, why is there an NT? Why can't Paul "meet" them in Acts 26's hearing?

Looking at the various Jewish texts of the second temple period, there was no unified view of eschatology. There were a range of views that more often than not shared some common elements such as God restoring Israel, beating Israel's enemies, preserving his remnant through a period of trial, rebuilding/renewing the temple...

Various prophetic and/or messianic movements came and went from the time of the Maccabean Revolt to the Bar Kokhba Revolt. These different groups ransacked the Hebrew scriptures and came up with their respective proof texts and interpretations for their eschatological expectations and justification for their particular actions.

The beginnings of Christianity clearly fit within this range of 2nd Temple Jewish worldviews, but it was it's own messianic and eschatological movement that shared similiar elements to other movements but carried it's own distinctions. So it's not identical to any of them, but it's clearly of the same stock.

 

[Douggg]

Is Christian eschatology the exact same as Judaism?

Of course not.

 

[Interplanner]

Yeckd
It has to have been a big enough departure to create the stir which it did. It had to have big enough departures from that stock.

Jn 12:34. Instead of the belief of the crowd (Judaism's eschatology), Jesus said he was the light, for a while, and that they should be looking at him.

 

[Interplanner]

In Acts 2, 3, 13 and 26, there are sharp reactions to the apostles teaching, so they could not have been teaching the same thing as Judaism. Judaism had a common enemy even if Judaism was itself divided.

 

[Interplanner]

These will never be trivial questions like the rapture!

 

[Interplanner]

Doug, can you elaborate?

Can you see how the desire to have Israel reign for 1000 years is merely keeping Judaism intact instead of tranfering its promises to be about Christ like the NT does?

 

[Rev20]

Doug, can you elaborate?

Can you see how the desire to have Israel reign for 1000 years is merely keeping Judaism intact instead of tranfering its promises to be about Christ like the NT does?

Even Scofield admitted that the animal sacrifices in the so-called Third Temple would be memorial. This is his note for Eze 43:19,

"Doubtless these offerings will be memorial, looking back to the cross, as the offerings under the old covenant were anticipatory, looking forward to the cross. In neither case have animal sacrifices power to put away sin. Hebrews 10:4; Romans 3:25." [Scofield Reference Manual, 1917, Eze.43:19 fn]​

The problem with Scofield's interpretation is that it required spiritualization of the scriptures:

"And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto me, to minister unto me, saith the Lord God, a young bullock for a sin offering." -- Eze 43:19​

God stated four times in this chapter that there would be sin offerings in the new temple. A sin offering after the resurrection of Christ would be blasphemy against the one-time sacrifice of Christ. Therefore, Ezekiel was writing prophetically of sin offerings inside the future second temple.

Ezekiel's prophecy for the new temple was written about 572 BC, in the five and twentieth year into his captivity (Eze 40:1), which was in the fourteenth year since Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BC. The Second Temple was rebuilt about half-century later, about 520 BC.

Ezekiel predicts the line of Levites who will administer the animal sacrifices; in particular the sons of Zadok of the tribe of Levi. Nehemiah confirms a g-grandson of Zadok, Seraiah, as ruler of the 2nd temple:

"Seraiah the son of Hilkiah, the son of Meshullam, the son of Zadok, the son of Meraioth, the son of Ahitub, was the ruler of the house of God." (Neh 11:11)​

This is Ezekiel on the descendents of Zadok:

"And the chamber whose prospect is toward the north is for the priests, the keepers of the charge of the altar: these are the sons of Zadok among the sons of Levi, which come near to the Lord to minister unto him." (Eze 40:46)​

"And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto me, to minister unto me, saith the Lord God, a young bullock for a sin offering." (Eze 43:19)​

"But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord God:" (Eze 44:15)​

"It shall be for the priests that are sanctified of the sons of Zadok; which have kept my charge, which went not astray when the children of Israel went astray, as the Levites went astray." Eze 48:11​

This is Ezekiel's warning regarding future abominations by the house of Israel:

"And the Lord said unto me, Son of man, mark well, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of the Lord, and all the laws thereof; and mark well the entering in of the house, with every going forth of the sanctuary. And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God; O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations," (Eze 44:5-6)​

Why would Ezekiel be instructed to say this to the house of Israel 2500 years ahead of time?

Conclusion: Ezekiel was prophesying of the second temple.


.

 

[Danoh]

The answer is in Scripture. It is neither in books supposedly Bible based, nor in reasoning supposedly Bible based.

Those two will only keep one from seeing the answer Scripture, and making it, by said erroneous tradtion of none effect, as now, "well, it actullly means this, instead."

Question is how do we know that what we understand any passage or passages to mean is what they mean. Hermeneutics is a science. And, as with any science, a means to being able to examine one's own findings against some sort of objective standard is required.

A standard which neither books about what to think, nor reasoning through the passages on one's in contrast to both how to get at the intended sense of the passages, as well as examine one's comclusions objectively, does not allow.

Scripture either stands on its own, or it does not.

Final Authority is so often more outward appearance than actually of the heart, in the spirit. In other words, it is too often claimed as the Final Authority, while the spirit, or attitude with which it is approached is the idea that, either some Scholar somwhere has been gifted beyond the Word's clear assertion it alone is Final Authority that it must be approached its way, that that is possible, that it contains all it needs about itself, that it is able to work effectually in you that believe it, and that all that boils down to is salvation on the one hand, and unto what purpose, and thus its ability also, to perfect one unto all good works.

All the rest, the endless books out there, might shed some light on a custom here and there, some history here and there but is no more necessary than needing to know under what decree or what have you Joseph and Mary came to pay what taxes to Ceasar.

None of that matters to Scripture - only what it alone declares matters to God - the above two issues.

A Jew was expected to keep the Law, not read into it the foolishness into it their scribes ended up doing.

Likewise with Christianity - time in The Book ever being willing to be corrected by it is all it requires of one 2 Tim. 3:16, 17.

What a mess "learned men" have made of the simplicity that is in Christ. Seems we never learn...

 

[Rev20]

The answer is in Scripture. It is neither in books supposedly Bible based, nor in reasoning supposedly Bible based.

Those two will only keep one from seeing the answer Scripture, and making it, by said erroneous tradtion of none effect, as now, "well, it actullly means this, instead."

Question is how do we know that what we understand any passage or passages to mean is what they mean. Hermeneutics is a science. And, as with any science, a means to being able to examine one's own findings against some sort of objective standard is required.

A standard which neither books about what to think, nor reasoning through the passages on one's in contrast to both how to get at the intended sense of the passages, as well as examine one's comclusions objectively, does not allow.

Scripture either stands on its own, or it does not.

Final Authority is so often more outward appearance than actually of the heart, in the spirit. In other words, it is too often claimed as the Final Authority, while the spirit, or attitude with which it is approached is the idea that, either some Scholar somwhere has been gifted beyond the Word's clear assertion it alone is Final Authority that it must be approached its way, that that is possible, that it contains all it needs about itself, that it is able to work effectually in you that believe it, and that all that boils down to is salvation on the one hand, and unto what purpose, and thus its ability also, to perfect one unto all good works.

All the rest, the endless books out there, might shed some light on a custom here and there, some history here and there but is no more necessary than needing to know under what decree or what have you Joseph and Mary came to pay what taxes to Ceasar.

None of that matters to Scripture - only what it alone declares matters to God - the above two issues.

A Jew was expected to keep the Law, not read into it the foolishness into it their scribes ended up doing.

Likewise with Christianity - time in The Book ever being willing to be corrected by it is all it requires of one 2 Tim. 3:16, 17.

What a mess "learned men" have made of the simplicity that is in Christ. Seems we never learn...

I agree that "learned men" have made a mess of Christianity, which was once thriving throughout the western world under traditional orthodoxy. Let's work together to restore traditional orthodoxy.


.

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh,
we'd have more of a mess without the Reformation...

Please reduce and clarify your writing. I noticed in this one there is the reference to a set of two key questions, and find them no where in the above. It could help if you set them off visually, like this:

1, _____
2, _____

The more vital a topic seems to you, the more confusing you are.

If it is any encouragement, the one line about Scripture on its own is great. That is why my main list of most important doctrinal chapters are Rom 3-5, Gal 3-4, Eph 2-3, 2 Cor 3-5, Heb 8-10. They are why I am not 2P2P, D'ist, etc. They are why I think Paul's career mission was to detangle the Gospel from Judaism, because the worst thing he knows of seems to be just that, addressed in Phil 3, not to mention what happened at Galatia.

If you can put your MidActs thingie in one concise line, it would help. just when I think I know what you mean, I get the above response to the 'Messianic Jews shunning me' story, and don't know what you mean about it or your 'critical' position.