It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ezekiel;- Return to the land

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 01:34 AM
link   
a reply to: KansasGirl
In my opinion, modern eschatology is complicated by two mistaken assumptions.
One assumption is that everything in the Old Testament should be taken as literally as possible.
The other assumption is that we should interpret everything in such a way that the end-times are focussed on our own generation.
From those assumptions, we get all the conflicting date calculations.

In Galatians ch6 vv15-16, Paul completely re-defines the word "Israel" (there should be no "and" in that second verse).
For that matter, in Romans ch2v29 he completely re-defines the word "Jew".
We need the Spirit and not the letter, "for the letter kills and the Spirit gives life".




posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI




In my opinion, modern eschatology is complicated by two mistaken assumptions. One assumption is that everything in the Old Testament should be taken as literally as possible. The other assumption is that we should interpret everything in such a way that the end-times are focussed on our own generation. From those assumptions, we get all the conflicting date calculations.
We could also say that its not about "knowing" but "believing" You really don't exercise the same type of faith (trust) .I think Paul knew he didn't know who and when the Christ would show up but like us probably thought about it a lot . He says for had they of known they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory .
I suspect it will be the same for His second coming . I felt like a yo yo trying to nail it all down . Its like trying to figure out which Church is the real Church

edit on 16-6-2018 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1
Exactly. That's why we need to be prepared and "awake" permanently, because that's the only way to avoid being taken by surprise - 1 Thessalonians ch5.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

Beyond that, he will take steps to keep them clean, which is the long-term solution to the problem.
“A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances” (vv24-27).


All this sounded so NT to me that I searched it and wound up here:
Cross References

If you go to the upper left corner, you can step through it verse by verse. I also found the cross refs from Hebrews 8:10 refer back to this section.

It seems so clear to me this refers to Christianity that it is difficult to imagine what else it could mean to those that don't believe in Christ. I expect they would say, "It means just exactly what it says" and leave it at that.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: toms54
Quite right. I've already done a thread series on Hebrews and remarked on the O.T. connections from that angle. Of course that chapter of Hebrews is also drawing heavily on the "new covenant" promise of Jeremiah ch31 vv31-34.
It's always good to draw attention to the continuity between the two testaments.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: toms54
Quite right. I've already done a thread series on Hebrews and remarked on the O.T. connections from that angle. Of course that chapter of Hebrews is also drawing heavily on the "new covenant" promise of Jeremiah ch31 vv31-34.
It's always good to draw attention to the continuity between the two testaments.


As I step through these cross references, I see many point to OT verses and a few to various NT books but most of the NT links refer to Paul. This doen't really surprise me. We see in Acts that his method of teaching was to reason from the scriptures. All this gives the impression that Christianity is derived from the OT.

How many of these reference the actual words of Christ in the Gospels? He spoke about the kingdom of God which may refer to the OT but his parables are not really drawn from there. Jesus knew the scripture and there was a messianic movement in Israel but most often when he discussed these things, he was disagreeing with the Jews. He understood how his own views intersected with the scripture; I don't think they were derived from existing Jewish thought. His ideas were based upon scripture principles but were new to the Jews. I have read about how Northern Israel may have had different concepts than the Jews but that's starting to go into another topic. My point is that Christian thought is not really derived from OT but later Paul, etc. went through the OT and used it to justify their teaching..



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54
In my last thread, I drew attention to the roots of the "Good Shepherd" theme in Ezekiel ch34.
In a previous thread, I showed the roots of the "birds and beasts sheltering under the spreading tree" image in ch17 vv22-24, and I think there was at least one more "KIngdom" image in one of the other chapters.

As I see it, the teaching of Jesus is re-asserting what God was originally telling Israel, which is not quite the same thing as the Old Testament, because "human traditions" got into much of the Old Testament itself (not just the commentaries). E.g., as Jeremiah points out, sacrifice was not one of the things God asked for at Sinai. Permitting men to dump wives at their own convenience went unchallenged in Deuteronomy, but Jesus went back to Genesis.

Nevertheless, the Old and New Testaments are offering the continuous history of a relationship. That is what matters.







edit on 16-6-2018 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: toms54

Nevertheless, the Old and New Testaments are offering the continuous history of a relationship. That is what matters.


If that was true, Jews would accept Jesus today. Neither does your acceptance of Christ somehow make you Jewish.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: toms54
If that was true, Jews would accept Jesus today.

Strictly speaking, "if that was true AND recognised as true by Jews, Jews would accept Jesus".
The second condition is the one that is missing, so the attitude of the Jews has nothing to say about the first condition.
The continuity of the history has always been the teaching of the church, and I think it is recognisable in any honest appraisal of the New Testament.

Neither does your acceptance of Christ somehow make you Jewish.

Acceptance of Christ makes me a member of God's people Israel by Paul's definition, which is also the implied definition of the rest of the New Testament;
"For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircmcision, but a new creation. Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule- that is, upon the Israel of God". (Galatians ch6vv15-16)
I am not interested in calling myself Jewish, but if I was I could even use Paul's re-definition of the word;
"He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal." (Romans ch2 v29)
The New Testament teaching is that there is one people of God, which began as a faith community in the time of Abraham and continues as a faith community.



edit on 16-6-2018 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

At present, the only continuity there is exists in your philosophy and your faith. We have Christ and his miracles. They have Talmud and Kabbalah. The teaching of the church only applies to Christians. Whatever continuity existed was gone by 100AD.

"For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation." "a new creation."

The one people of God, which began as a faith community started before Abraham. Melchizedek was before Abraham. What continues today is not one people of God unless you see that as Christian only. If you include the non believing Jews, most of whom seem to be atheist today, then that would fall under a future joining together.

At present, the only continuity there is exists in your philosophy and your faith.



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: toms54
I take it you mean the philosophy and faith of the church, because it is what the church has always believed and taught.
It is one of the fundamentals of the Christian faith. We don't have Christ on any other terms.

Perhaps I should make it clear that the continuity I'm talking about is the continuity between past and present, not between different groups in the present. I think that's where your confusion is coming from, the misunderstanding of that word.
There is continuity in the English royal family between William the Conqueror and Elizabeth II. Continuity between past and present.
In the same way, there is continuity in the family of God between Abraham and the modern Christian believer. Continuity between past and present.
Because Abraham is the common ancestor of everybody who believes, whether circumcised or uncircumcised (Romans ch4v11, Galatians ch3 v7, not to mention Matthew ch2v9).
This is the teaching of the New Testament as a whole, and it has always been the standard teaching of the church.








edit on 17-6-2018 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

I am saying that Christianity is not derived from Judaism. God was in the world before Abraham. Adam and Eve believed in God. Noah believed in God. Abraham did not invent faith or God. Abraham, besides having children, stopped idol worship and polytheism. Melchizedek was a priest of God that Abraham tithed to. Faith did not begin with Abraham; he fathered the Israelites and Arabs.

Christianity is based upon universal principles. They are Jewish principles only to the point where Jewish principles are universal.

After the royal line from Israel was wiped out, Jesus said, "the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force" The Jews lost the kingdom. It was inherited by the Christians. Different people, different faith. This is the only continuity except for hope of the future joining together. The Jews do not hope for a common future except that we should become subject to them. They still see themselves as the chosen people and seek to dominate the world. There is no JudeoChristian faith except for a future union. The church has not always taught that we were one faith, one people. This Christian Zionism is a 20th century invention.



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: toms54
Abraham he fathered the Israelites and Arabs.

AND he is the spiritual ancestor of all those who have faith. I have already given you the New Testament authorities for that one.

This Christian Zionism is a 20th century invention.

Christian Zionism is, but not "this", because I am not talking about Christian Zionism. I am talking about about the conviction that the New Testament faith is founded upon the Old Testament.
That has always been the belief of the church. Conversely, the claim that the New Testament is NOT founded upon the Old Testament is the teaching of Montanus, which was recognised as heresy from the moment it first appeared.
[Later edit. Delete Montanus, substitute Marcion. Oops.]

For heaven's sake, it is embedded in the New Testament itself. I have given you some of the quotations. Did you not read them? Are you sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "I'm not going to believe what the New Testament says, because the New Testament is a twentieth century invention"?
Please read the New Testament. Please try to understand what the gospels are saying to you.

edit on 17-6-2018 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-6-2018 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

I am not Montanist. There is no new prophesy.

You quote Paul. Paul is in the Bible and you believe that so what Paul says must be true, yes? It is true but to understand Paul you need to understand his context, his perspective, where he is coming from, who he is speaking to, and carefully follow what he is talking about.

Above all, you must interpret his writings in light of what Christ said. Without this, Paul loses all authority. In fact, the same could be said about any books in the NT. Just because they are both in the Bible does not make Paul the equal of Christ. He was speaking from his perspective as a Jew that had come to believe on Christ. When Christ spoke of Abraham, he was telling some Jews they were not children of Abraham but children of the devil.

Christ claimed to be greater than Abraham. Christians are not disciples of Abraham (or Paul) we are disciples of Christ.



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: toms54
Sorry, I meant Marcion. Got my "m"s mixed up, quoting from memory.
With that amendment, my point stands.
The New Testament is the climax and fulfilment of the Old Testament, as the church has always believed.



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

When we look at Abrahams experience our Christian one is a mirror copy in many ways . He is called out of one of the Nations so that God can create a new one . Ours is a kingdom with a high priest that was mirrored with Abraham's meeting with Melchisedeck . The circumcision of our heart . In Abrams case I thought when I read it that no man would impose that upon himself . It would be like ,hey guys we have a way that you can have a baby . What man in his right mind would buy into that
Under every stone or so it seems you can look under in the OT and and find Christ and a type that is addressed in the NT . Not only that but there is much writing post Biblical that finds other threads that expand scripture . But yet we see some that see nothing and say move along nothing to see . Its a amazing thing to behold .



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: toms54




I am saying that Christianity is not derived from Judaism.
I have to agree and say that Christianity is derived from the OT which Judaism today has evolved from the time of Christ to present and has more to do with the traditions of men which Jesus said nullifies the law of Moses . Judaism only starts to get codified in the 1st/2nd century . Its a different beast that not only nullifies the OT but also discredits the NT .

eta ... I think you could compare Judaism to Islam in that they both mention Jesus and Christians and they also both discredit Christianity . And they also both claim that Abraham is their father in the physical sense . They have a earthly genealogy link while the NT teaches only the spiritual one . Christ fulfilled both sides of the coin in that respect .
edit on 17-6-2018 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

I am not a Marcionist either. I believe in the same God. I just differ in my view of the relationship of Christianity to Judaism.

This entire conversation will probably be struck for thread drift anyway. I am kind of sorry I brought this discussion to your Bible commentary thread. It distracts from the good work you are doing here. You have given me a lot to think about, maybe we will speak again somewhere else.



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

No doubt your view that Christianity is derived from the OT is a popular one. If you concentrate on what Jesus said and reread the NT in light of that I think a slightly different view can emerge. Jesus did not nullify the law (a point many Christians seem to miss) he encompassed it.

I don't really think of Islam as comparable to Judaism. I believe Islam grew out of a strain of messianic Judaism.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: toms54




Jesus did not nullify the law (a point many Christians seem to miss) he encompassed it.
He actually fulfilled the righteous requirement of the law .Something no one can do and so His righteousness is imputed to those that trust what the cross accomplished . The deamons at that time knew who He was and knew He was going to finish them off and usher in His Kingdom . They didn't know that by putting Him to death so God could raise Him from the grave would seal their faith . Jesus speaks and alludes to things that even those close to Him had no idea until after the Resurrection on the day of Pentecost . That is when things changed in their minds and what He talked about before started making sense . Even Paul wrote that if they (tptb) would have known they would not have crucified Him . So Jesus was cryptic and kept his cards close to His chest .

So The Kingdom is about true believers having faith , hope , and love . Those 3 things fulfills the purpose of why the law was given to begin with .If we love God and our neighbors then we have no need for all of the shalt not's . and circumcision .and the many festivals or ordinances . They are all wrapped up in us remembering His death .....peace



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join