Search results

So now you are changing? YOu said "most" as if to imply not all. But before you eisegeted your definition of the DotL into Isa. 13. What about Jeremiah's use of DotL for Egypt and others? It has historical references. A hermeneutical mistake would be to assume that all the "DotL's" are...

Why an epistle? Is that your canon within a canon??? I find the method of Jesus to be much more convincing. And Paul mentions repentance often. Cf. 2 Cor. 7:10; 2 Tim. 2:25. Also Heb. 6:1 & 2 Peter 3:9. And of course we know that was the primary issue in Jesus presentation of the rule of...

One poster posed an interpretation that said, "[T]hat still future day when Messiah will come, judge the nations, Israel, and set up His Kingdom." Is it possible that the term was used of historical events that have long since come to pass (Isa. 13 & Jer. 46)?

This is where rhetorical/literary criticism is helpful. Since they did not have chapters (I'm not dumb) they did have other ways to mark off sections. One of the most often used methods was to bookend or use inclusios. Beginning and ending w/ Babylon was a way to mark off that text to refer...

Absolutely!!! Jesus called disciples not converts. I wouldn't follow any other model of evangelism. Repentance was a huge part of his presentation. And I would say that bound up in the word "faith" is not some mental acknowledgement but a sincere and extreme conviction about a truth so much...

Your only basis for holding to such is that you have a preconceived notion of what the day of YHWH was supposed to be. Even if the Jews knew it was to be in the future, the funny thing is, this was a prophecy of the fall of Babylon yet to take place. But the entire context is about Babylon...

I actually think that "word" in reference in Heb. 4:12 is not Scripture but the message of the gospel. That fits the context very well. And logos has the basic idea of "message" in Hebrews to coincide with the "confession" motif found throughout. However, I would only capitalize "word" when...

Documentation??? How about when Babylon was defeated by the Medes (cf. 13:17)? The figural language was used because when Babylon fell it was an earth shattering event. You have to be able to allow apocalyptic language to include real world historical events such as clearly referred to in...

Or John is playing off of the concept of Babylon since the empire had long been defeated. I can't believe I used to believe this stuff. But the one that gets me most is the inconsistencies of verses having dual fulfillments when dispo's in the same breath talk about single meaning and stable...

That seems very unlikely in light of v. 13 "Behold, I am stirring up the Medes against them, who have no regard for silver and do not delight in gold." I'm sure you know, the Medes & Persians ended the Babylonian empire. This was a prophecy of things soon to come.

Seriously... do you even know the historical context of Isaiah??? I have a feeling the only reason you are saying that is b/c it obviously was not fulfilled literally. But the fall of Babylon was an earthshaking moment in the history of the nations. So figurative (apocalyptic) language was...

No... I get your point... you just didn't make it well until now. And theologically speaking, I completely agree that it was because of the sins of mankind that Jesus died. However, through secondary causation, it was the Romans enticed by the Jews of Jesus day who actually put him to death...

One more time in case HankD missed it...

But all you've done is cited random Scripture that speaks of "heavenly" or the NJ ("heavenly" calling hardly equates house with the NJ... that is a stretch even for dispos). The context of Heb. 3:1-6 is that "house" does not refer to an actual dwelling place but has a figurative meaning...

And who brought Jesus to the Romans? Last time I checked my Bible, the Jews had their own trials for Jesus. They needed Roman approval to carry out the death penalty. Read Jn 5:18 & 7:1. But what I was getting at was why there would even be animosity from the Jews toward Jesus. It would...

Question for you, HankD: Are the following verses from Isaiah meant to be taken literal? If so, when did it happen? Isa 13:10 For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light. Isa 13:13...

Not surprising that you over-literalized the concept of "house." It is clearly not a reference to NJ. Heb 3:6 says "we are his house" as in a reference to the people of God. It was the very house that Moses was a servant and Jesus a son.

Seems hard to make that distinction when Heb. 3:6 puts both into "one house". Further the continuity of the testaments as it relates to the gospel makes it difficult as well. Now I should clarify that I do not believe the church today is Israel so much as redefined Israel. I believe part of...

Amazing Paul called Gen. 12:3 the gospel. Talk about continuity!!! And Jesus simply piggybacks off of the Isaianic message of the suffering servant spreading the news of the reign of God. That is where the term "euangelion" comes from - Isaiah 52:7 LXX. This is why this word was chosen to...

Except he is arguing that the one "to whom we should listen to [sic]" is Paul not Jesus.