OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[muffler dragon]

It is well accepted among both Jewish and Christian scholars, clergy, and theologians that this passage is concerning the messiah. This interpretation has been well established dating back to before Jesus. The debate has always been over who is the messianic figure that the passage describes.

Would you be interested in debating the contention you raise regarding Jewish scholars and the timing?

I should note that I am compiling a breakdown of the passage verse by verse; however, that is separate from the point you raise. I'll gladly keep them separate, if you're interested.

 

[muffler dragon]

just throwing in my $0.02

Ah... they cease to exist. In that case, take every post where I mention hell and insert "cease to exist" Same problems arise.

Spiritual and physical nihilism doesn't have a source in the Tanakh either. It has been posited within Jewish considerations that the Worst of the Bad guys do cease to exist; but ultimately, Judaism holds to a "universalistic" approach for humanity.

I guess I'm left guessing about support for the adoption in to the royal family theory.

The problem this raises for me (in my new found belief system) is, "Why?". Why must I be adopted? With regard to the Gentiles, there is no mention whatsoever of this in Torah.

Truly, I'm perfectly comfortable ceasing to exist if my only other option is to submit to such sadism. G-d may be as you describe. But, if He is, I want no part of Him. But, fortunately for me, I do not believe in such a G-d. And, even if I did, this god you describe, would be subordinate to the G-d I talk about.

As I said pages ago, I am at complete peace with G-d (which doesn't mean I don't continue to challege myself regarding His creation and "what it all means"). I'm a good person. I don't need to be saved. It's highly offensive to me for anyone to assume otherwise. You'll note, I've never offered to save anyone. I've never taken the position that my theories on G-d must be adopted or you face ceasing to exist. I try very hard to simply outline what I think, and what I think are problems with what you might think (I don't necessarily mean YOU specifically) so that you might examine your theories more closely as I do when my ideas are well challenged. For me, that's all I'm interested in on this and other religious threads. For me, it's not about right and wrong. But for you, it seems, it most certainly is. Well, again, if it is.... I'll simply cease to be. And that's fine with me.

You should check out Psalm 49 and Ezekiel 18 some time.

Odd that Jews would fail to recognize their own Savior so completely. Odd also, as Muffler has mentioned before and could surely argue much better than I, that the man Jesus failed to conform to what we should anticipate the Savior be. Indeed, even as a matter of doctrine, the "Messiah" has been understood to Jews as being a MAN, not a god.... and surely not G-d Himself.

The retort that I often run into with this consideration is that the Jews were "blinded" by G-d. Paul espouses the idea that this was done to reach out to the Gentiles. Interestingly enough, this removes personal accountability in the salvific equation and it also reeks of election which does the very same thing. The problems continue to jump up on each other.

Furthermore, I find this consideration even more "odd" when one looks at the times. Failed and false messiahs were running amok underneath the Roman occupation of Israel. One would have to believe that since the entire nation of Israel didn't follow one single individual that there were some underlying themes that people were holding to.

 

[stowfan]

Please feel free to show me anywhere in the Jewish Bible that the Messiah equates to a sacrificial lamb. :)

Then we'll discuss further.

NM

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

You should check out Psalm 49 and Ezekiel 18 some time.

All I take from those is that we should accept personal responsibility for our actions, admit our failure to G-d when we fail, believe and enjoy existence. In as much as I'm relying on English translations, I'm not sure how to interperate the word "Death" in some instances. Even to the extent it means "cease to exist" I'm pretty sure there was nothing about accepting Jesus as Christ as the way to avoid "death" and I didn't see anything about adoption either. Again, looks to me like all G-d asks is that we don't try to bullshit him, accept personal responsibility for our acts, and try and be the best we can be.

"Repent and live" (Ezekiel 18:30) to me, says "learn from your mistakes" or... even more simply, "learn" To me, this is exactly what I believe we are here to do in life- Learn.

 

[muffler dragon]

All I take from those is that we should accept personal responsibility for our actions, admit our failure to G-d when we fail, believe and enjoy existence. In as much as I'm relying on English translations, I'm not sure how to interperate the word "Death" in some instances. Even to the extent it means "cease to exist" I'm pretty sure there was nothing about accepting Jesus as Christ as the way to avoid "death" and I didn't see anything about adoption either. Again, looks to me like all G-d asks is that we don't try to bullshit him, accept personal responsibility for our acts, and try and be the best we can be.

"Repent and live" (Ezekiel 18:30) to me, says "learn from your mistakes" or... even more simply, "learn" To me, this is exactly what I believe we are here to do in life- Learn.

Bingo!

 

[CookyPuss]

Would you be interested in debating the contention you raise regarding Jewish scholars and the timing?

Nah, you can find plenty of websites dedicated to that debate. Problem is that they are all written either by Christians trying to prove it is about Jesus or Jews trying to prove it is not. I searched around and couldn't find any reliable sources on the issue and being 10 years removed from my seminary degree, I don't have ready access to the proper sources. If I get time, I'll try to dig up some stuff for you.

 

[muffler dragon]

Nah, you can find plenty of websites dedicated to that debate.

Yep.

Problem is that they are all written either by Christians trying to prove it is about Jesus or Jews trying to prove it is not. I searched around and couldn't find any reliable sources on the issue and being 10 years removed from my seminary degree, I don't have ready access to the proper sources.

Jewish sources? I have at my disposal many human and written (translated primary) sources that discuss the Jewish traditions regarding Isaiah 53. The reason I bring this up is because, IMO, it's a common misunderstanding in Christendom to believe that Jewish scholars take Isaiah 53 as a messianic passage in the plain meaning of the text. The difference is what level of interpretation. This leads me to two subsequent questions:

1) Are you knowledgeable of the PaRDeS interpretational set in Judaism?
2) Are you knowledgeable of Midrash Aggadah, Midrash Halacha, and how these differ from the plain interpretations of text?

If I get time, I'll try to dig up some stuff for you.

Please don't feel the need to do so. I'm aware of the arguments from both sides. The reason why I asked you about debating was to entertain the opportunity for a better representation of what Jewish tradition says.

 

[Bleed S & G]

A Woman Ride's The Beast

I sat down and watched the video - very well done and appears to be very well researched. Basically, through scripture and history Dave Hunt explains how the Holy Roman Church fits the description of the great whore in Revelations.

Lonnng video, very well done.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5Ke7Tn3uOU]YouTube - A Woman Rides the Beast - Dave Hunt[/ame]

 

[Gatorubet]

I sat down and watched the video - very well done and appears to be very well researched. Basically, through scripture and history Dave Hunt explains how the Holy Roman Church fits the description of the great whore in Revelations.

Lonnng video, very well done.

YouTube - A Woman Rides the Beast - Dave Hunt

It is too glib for me. "And the stone is Christ.."...Well....there is no backing for the interpretation, other than the statement itself, and one gets to interpret whatever one wants you can make a case for anything.

Put another way, if that is all it takes, then any one of hundreds of interpetations may be just as correct.

 

[Bleed S & G]

Put another way, if that is all it takes, then any one of hundreds of interpetations may be just as correct.

Looking at the verse that describes the beast in detail, here is why I think the church fits very well.

1And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

Chapter 17 of revelation tells us that the waters are:

And he said to me, "The waters which you saw where the harlot sits, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues.

A Harlot, from my understanding of prophecy and the Old Testament, is a term used to describe an unfaithful church.

So whatever the beast is, it has great influence and is in many nations and people.

2With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication,

So whoever the beast is must have politcal influence according to scripture..

The Holy See has worldwide influence, especially throughout history, still even today.

In fact, this is the Holy See's current sphere of influence:

Dark green: Diplomatic Relations
Light green: Other Relations
Grey: None

and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

So according to the Bible, the beast must be a 'big' organzation, in that, scripture indicates it 'sits on many waters' and 'the inhabitants of earth have been made drunk' .. the Cathlioc Church again fits the bill as it has over 1.1 Billion members.

3So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour,

Scarlet & Purple are the colors that the cardinals and arch bishops wear and from memory I want to say it is the "offical" colors of garments in the Church.. here is a picture from JPII's funeral:

and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls,

To boot, I believe the Church is one of the richest instutions today. Also again note, this isn't new crap.. the curch has been very wealthy for a very very long time. Again, the Church fits.

having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

Could be symbolic of the challace..

5And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Babylon can be referring to a couple of cities, it helps narrow it down by being a 'nother of harlots' (the schisms). Rome was called Babylon at the time John recieved his prophetic visions that make up Revelation. Again, Rome qualifies. Also interestingly, the beast is revived from a mortal wound. Symbolically, Rome collapsed. Rome was never replaced (Daniele prophized 4 empires, no 5th taking it's place) but instead was revived in the form of religion.

6And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Another hint to help show the faithful who the beast is: drunken with the blood of the saints.

1. Rome persucated plenty christians
2. Saints like Joan of Arc come to mind
3. The cathlioc church persecuted christians (and saints) of other faiths that did not agree with their beliefs.

Again, the Holy See qualifies. Now the Angel shows John some more clues for 'the mind which hath wisdom'..

7And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns. .... 9And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

The woman sits on 7 mountains, a city of 7 hills. Which narrows down the possibilites even more. Rome fits the description again.
These are the clues to identify the beast given to us through scripture, and objectivley looking at history, IMO the Cathlioc Church fits the bill in a very scary way.

By the way, I was born and raised in Cathlioc schools.

 

[Gatorubet]

It is allegory city, and you have to admit that the references are open to different interpretations.

Where is your stuff on why the stone is Christ in the statement on scripture*. Seems like I could make a case for about anything with that level of flixibility in interpreting scripture. Not trying to be rude SG, just sayin'...

"Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces."

 

[Bleed S & G]

It is allegory city, and you have to admit that the references are open to different interpretations.

Where is your stuff on why the stone is Christ in the statement on scripture*. Seems like I could make a case for about anything with that level of flixibility in interpreting scripture. Not trying to be rude SG, just sayin'...

"Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces."

OK, well honestly I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the uncanny fit of the Holy Roman Church in Revelation 17, as that quote is from Daniel and was being used to show the 4 empires Daniel foretold.

That said lets examine the passage:

First, Daniel is saved from being put to death because he says he can reveal the dream to the king...

29 "As you were lying there, O king, your mind turned to things to come, and the revealer of mysteries showed you what is going to happen. 30 As for me, this mystery has been revealed to me, not because I have greater wisdom than other living men, but so that you, O king, may know the interpretation and that you may understand what went through your mind.


31 "You looked, O king, and there before you stood a large statue?an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. 32 The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay.

Head of gold, chest of silver, belly/thighs of bronze, and feet of iron and clay represents the greatest empire of them all - Rome. It has maintained previous qualities of the empires before it, while becoming stronger than the others. The qualties of gold, silver, and bronze are those given to the 3 empires (babylon, persian, and greece) while iron was added to the roman empire (this is from another passage in daniele where he identifies the 4 empires).

34 While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands.

This where Christ (described as a rock, as He would be described later in scripture) came from the Roman empire..

It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were broken to pieces at the same time and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.

36 "This was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king. 37 You, O king, are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; 38 in your hands he has placed mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds of the air. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold.

39 "After you, another kingdom will rise, inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth. 40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron?for iron breaks and smashes everything?and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others.

41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay.
42 As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. 43 And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.

44 "In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands?a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.

"The great God has shown the king what will take place in the future. The dream is true and the interpretation is trustworthy." 46 Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell prostrate before Daniel and paid him honor and ordered that an offering and incense be presented to him. 47 The king said to Daniel, "Surely your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, for you were able to reveal this mystery."

Again though Gator, this is related, and I know thats how that video is begun.. is not identifying the beast (key player along with the false prophet and anti-christ in the end times) such as Revelation 17 does.

And again, Revelation 17 warns us:

1. It is a city located on 7 hills, that has survived a mortal wound
2. It is a spirtual city, which yeilds great power and authority over the earth
3. It has been called Babylon
4. Very wealthy, adorned in jewels and gold
5. Many saints have been killed there
6. The colors it wears are scarlet and purple
7. It has many members who are "drunk"

If, as you claim, the scripture is so open to interpretation please show me another beast the passages could be refering to. I feel there is more than enough evidence the Holy Roman Church fits the bill. And it's pretty specific.

 

[muffler dragon]

Rhetorical Question: why would the progenitor (RCC) of Christendom (along with the previous EO affiliation) canonize a book that supposedly prophesies it's own baseness?

As an outside of observer of Christendom, I have to admit that I relate the RCC deriders of Protestantism/Reformation as children that are attempting to find their own footing in life, and rail against their parents. This is not a slight, but instead, a natural course of things. The only part that I intend on sharing of consideration is this:

IF the RCC is the beast of Revelation; THEN Christendom's foundation is quite shaky (if not virtually destroyed). The RCC is the very organization that has:

1) given Christianity its canon.
2) given Christianity its core beliefs and doctrines.

Regarding Revelation, it can also be deduced as speaking of the city, Rome; and not necessarily the religion.

 

[Bleed S & G]

IF the RCC is the beast of Revelation; THEN Christendom's foundation is quite shaky (if not virtually destroyed). The RCC is the very organization that has:

1) given Christianity its canon.
2) given Christianity its core beliefs and doctrines.

Regarding Revelation, it can also be deduced as speaking of the city, Rome; and not necessarily the religion.

Completely disagree.

Christendom is not about worshipping Mary. Christendom is not about a man being 'infalliable' or having gold phones. Christendom is not about pagan holidays. The Holy Church is the great deception.

Those are a few quick examples off the top of my head that the teachings of God and Christ through scripture denounce.

In terms of giving the cannons and core beliefs.. maybe you misread the part about the whore being the mother of all harlots. Preverting the word of God for power and money - naaw that couldn't be the work of Satan. ;-)

Christianity is ultimatley very simple and easy to follow: Thou shall have no other gods before Him. Treat your neighbor as yourself. That is Christendom's true cannon IMO.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Completely disagree.

Christendom is not about worshipping Mary. Christendom is not about a man being 'infalliable' or having gold phones. Christendom is not about pagan holidays. The Holy Church is the great deception.

Those are a few quick examples off the top of my head that the teachings of God and Christ through scripture denounce.

In terms of giving the cannons and core beliefs.. maybe you misread the part about the whore being the mother of all harlots. Preverting the word of God for power and money - naaw that couldn't be the work of Satan. ;-)

Who's this Satan fella?

Christianity is ultimatley very simple and easy to follow: Thou shall have no other gods before Him. Treat your neighbor as yourself. That is Christendom's true cannon IMO.

Sounds Jewish to me.

A little more seriously, S&G, you seem to have an interest in the apocalypse. I must say, it was also quite a draw for me some time ago. I tried to "decipher" it, that is. Give it meaning. Make it make sense. But, I've come to realize Revelation isn't describing anything at all. There is not a 'beast' There will be no 4 horsemen... no trumpets. Pick ANY time in history, and you can quickly see that IT was the end-time... just as we are in the End times now... and will be again in 10 years... 50 years.. 100 years... We all want our time to be "meaningful" and the apocalypse provides that meaning for a lot of folks.

Of course, this is simply my opinion. I certainly don't say this with the intention of getting you to quit researching something you apparently have a serious interest in.

But, could you answer this for me (and don't feel obligated) how does the "end times," the battle between Good and Evil, make a lick of sense? Why should there be any such time? It seems to me to be a completely arbitrary thing for an all powerful G-d to do.