Kristine replied to Don K. Preston Jerusalem is JEBUS and must be destroyed: therefore the NEW Jerusalem coming down from Heaven to replace it. When ICABOD was cried, the spirit of the Almighty left that place.
Kabbalah is the mother of whoredomes, her home is in Jerusalem, with the pharisees, in the Sanhedrin. Her obedient daughters are Catholicism and Islam, who HIDE the originating harlot known as Kabbalah, the received word of...(23 February, 2019 - 10:13)
Miguel de Servet replied to Kristine “Jerusalem is JEBUS and must be destroyed: therefore the NEW Jerusalem coming down from Heaven to replace it. When ICABOD [Icabod? Maybe Ichabod?] was cried, the spirit of the Almighty left that place.”
It seems to me that, with this post, the genie has been let out of the bottle for the lunatic fringe to enjoy themselves with …(23 February, 2019 - 09:57)
Devin Edwards Israel was called first but rejected Jesus and killed His servants. God had Israel destroyed for their rejection. Then the gospel was sent to the gentiles more specifically the United States. This country also has rejected Christ by her betrayal and adultery with false god’s, for example the legalization of every sin: homosexuality, abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, alcohol,...(23 February, 2019 - 10:12)
Franco replied to Franco Or maybe, “That IS how we’re going to do this… we’re heading off to slaughter boys.” (14 February, 2019 - 18:30)
Franco Other than Keesmaat and Walsh, are there other scholars who would point towards a counter-reading of this parable. Especially since noting the Archelaus comparison in the text, I have a difficult time picturing Jesus purposefully drawing on that analogy to align himself with Archelaus’ methodology rather than critiquing it. Is it plausible to think that Jesus is directing his dicisples to the...(14 February, 2019 - 17:49)
Miguel de Servet replied to Andrew “It’s a literary question. It’s about Luke’s story-telling technique.”
Talking about which, there is this also Acts 2:22-36.(12 February, 2019 - 11:06)
Andrew replied to Anna Denise Bolks Hi Anna.
It’s a good point. We are led to expect Philip to explain to the eunuch that the passage is about someone else, and to think that this “someone else” is Jesus.
I’m not sure that this is about culture particularly. It’s a literary question. It’s about Luke’s story-telling technique. Even if we conclude that Philip directly identified the suffering servant figure with Jesus, there are...(12 February, 2019 - 08:49)
Anna Denise Bolks The analogy perspective certainly adds depth and richness to Philips’ response, and I thank you for drawing that out. But the text seems very suggestive towards identification. The eunuch thinks it concerns a person based on his reading, and the author decides to write down the exact reference which, taken on its own, suggests the subject is a person. Why is the suggestion left open in this way?...(10 February, 2019 - 10:17)
Miguel de Servet replied to Andrew No one’s disputing the fact that ‘there are in the text of “Deutero-Isaiah”… four distinct “servant songs” that stand out within the text’.
Let me remind you that the “servant Israel/Jacob” (Is 41:8) is not part of any of those four distinct “servant songs” …
BTW, I did not provide the link to Berges’ essay to “score points”, just to confirm that Duhm is still of scholarly interest and not...(8 February, 2019 - 14:36)
Andrew replied to Miguel de Servet No one’s disputing the fact that ‘there are in the text of “Deutero-Isaiah”… four distinct “servant songs” that stand out within the text’.Thank you for the link to Berges’ essay. At first glance, he appears to support my argument about the suffering servant: “The deaf and blind servant Jacob/Israel was purified and chosen during the Babylonian exile, the furnace of misery, as the...(8 February, 2019 - 12:21)
Miguel de Servet replied to Andrew Since Duhm New Testament scholarship has learnt to stop reading the Jewish scriptures through the keyhole of New Testament theology.
Thank you for the links. However interesting, none of them changes a dot in Duhm discovery (theory, if you prefer) that there are in the text of “Deutero-Isaiah” (an expression that Duhm coined for his study, BTW) four distinct “servant songs” that stand out within...(8 February, 2019 - 11:52)
Andrew replied to Miguel de Servet Since Duhm New Testament scholarship has learnt to stop reading the Jewish scriptures through the keyhole of New Testament theology. See further:
The history of biblical interpretation—a tale of two cities
Who is the founder of the narrative-historical hermeneutic?
Samuel Adams’ summary of Wright’s argument about history and theology
Can evangelicalism hitch the wagon of church and...(8 February, 2019 - 09:19)
Miguel de Servet The bad news was that the nation was heading for a disastrous war against its Roman overlords, which would result in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and massive loss of life.
Jesus’ public mission lasted (depending on the gospel version) from 6 months to 3 years. Assuming the shortest option, there is no evidence that “the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple” was part of the...(9 February, 2019 - 11:49)
Miguel de Servet replied to Andrew [Jesus’] “view of Israel’s destiny” is the one put to Caiaphas and the Jewish Council—that this wicked and adulterous generation of Israel’s leadership will live to “see” divine authority transferred to the Son of Man.
“Put to Caiaphas and the Jewish Council”? Mmm …
These are the two verses in Matthew that speak of “wicked and adulterous generation”:
But he answered them, “An evil and...(9 February, 2019 - 08:55)
Andrew replied to peter wilkinson This gives an idea of how modern interpreters have thought about the identity of the servant:it is apparent that four “servant” identities appear on these pages. Israel, scattered throughout the Diaspora, is the first. The Persian emperors who produced edicts supporting the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s temple—Cyrus, Darius, and possibly Artaxerxes—are a second. The implied author is a third, while...(8 February, 2019 - 18:52)
Miguel de Servet replied to peter wilkinson I would point out to you and Andrew that early rabbinic interpretation of the Isaiah 53 servant in particular was that he was a person, not the nation, and messianic
You certainly do well to keep pointing it out to Andrew. I know because I agree with you that (a) Isaiah “suffering servant” is an individual, NOT Israel itself and (b) throughout the NT Jesus is certainly identified with that...(8 February, 2019 - 18:28)
peter wilkinson replied to Miguel de Servet You say that Israel’s survival, “a nation under YHWH”, is a “A historical phenomenon that defies all the “laws” of history”. I don’t think Israel’s survival for nearly 2000 years without a geographical territory of its own was foreseen by Paul, who alone in the NT comes nearest to believing in an on-going destiny for Israel. Israel also did not survive as what we would...(8 February, 2019 - 15:14)
Miguel de Servet A quick comment for a short post.
This is the dictionary definition (American Heritage®)
es·cha·tol·o·gy (ĕs′kə-tŏl′ə-jē) n.
1. The branch of theology that is concerned with the end of the world or of humankind.
2. A belief or a doctrine concerning the ultimate or final things, such as death, the destiny of humanity, the Second Coming, or the Last Judgment
The expression “post-eschatological”...(9 February, 2019 - 08:36)
Andrew replied to Miguel de Servet To be honest, I’m getting tired of the sarcastic, condescending tone of your comments, and the fact that we seem not to be understanding each other. Enough for the time being.(8 February, 2019 - 14:30)
Miguel de Servet replied to Andrew You’re being pedantic. The statement is correct. It didn’t happen.
No, I am not, it is you who sets arbitrary time limits to the conversion of Israel to their (their) Messiah. Unlike you, and against your claims, Paul did NOT.
And boasting as you are your narrative-historical method, you should be embarrassed, ignoring or trivializing a most peculiar historical phenomenon as the survival of...(8 February, 2019 - 13:42)
Andrew replied to Miguel de Servet You’re being pedantic. The statement is correct. It didn’t happen.Whatever we then make of the re-establishment of the state of Israel, is another matter. The narrative-historical approach (at least, as I see it) merely suggests that it is beyond the plausible historical horizon of the apostolic community. In the broader sense, the modern development, like the collapse of Christendom...(8 February, 2019 - 11:37)
Miguel de Servet But the argument from Isaiah 59:20-21 LXX in Romans 11:25-26 suggests to me that he hoped that the Jews would repent after judgment and so “all Israel will be saved”. It didn’t happen.
This is not quite correct. It HASN’T happened YET.
If you look at history with something other than your narrative-historical “binoculars”, you will have to admit that the survival of the scattered...(8 February, 2019 - 11:19)
Miguel de Servet replied to Andrew You’re sounding very confused.
Not on your Nelly Duff! It is you who cannot read properly. See next.
There’s all the difference in the world between identifying “the Son of Man of Daniel with Jesus” and recognising that Jesus identified himself with Daniel’s figure “like a son of man”.
If you re-read (calmly, coolly and collectedly) my previous comment, you will see that, based on the...(8 February, 2019 - 14:11)
Andrew replied to Miguel de Servet You’re sounding very confused. There’s all the difference in the world between identifying “the Son of Man of Daniel with Jesus” and recognising that Jesus identified himself with Daniel’s figure “like a son of man”. Obviously, the New Testament applies Daniel’s vision to Jesus. The question is what was meant by it.(8 February, 2019 - 10:52)
Miguel de Servet I think this post should have been premised with a notice like this at the top:
NARRATIVE-HISTORICAL SPOILER ALERT!!!
In this post I will examine some different readings of the expression “Son of Man”.
One thing you will neve have from me, not even if you torture me, nay, not even if you call me names, nay, not even if you tickle me: I will NEVER identify the Son of Man of Daniel with Jesus. It...(8 February, 2019 - 10:32)