Jump to content


Radey's Content

There have been 55 items by Radey (Search limited from 30-March 23)



Sort by                Order  

#444003 "That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying..."

Posted by Radey on 19 November 2012 - 05:51 PM in Theology

Someone (i.e., me) once wrote:

In Hebrews 2:12 it records this of Jesus:


He says, “I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises.”

Here it talks as if Jesus is currently doing this — he is currently saying something (‘He says’, not ‘said’). And the thing Jesus is saying is that he will declare God’s name to his spiritual family. He talks about his family being assembled together as a congregation, and he says he will sing God’s praises in front of that congregation.

What do you reckon: is this a true reading? Does the grammar work?


I agree with everything everyone has said here, BUT.

Jesus proved the resurrection by quoting the words of God to Moses 'I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob' saying 'God is not a God of the dead, but of the living'. This is using present tense to prove a point, in this case the resurrection from the dead. This was not the intention of the words when they were spoken, this is an example of Jesus using the way something has been recorded to prove a secondary point, isn't it? Is it okay for us to do the same thing? Use an application to prove a point for which it was not necessarily intended?

How that applies to Luke's 'present tense' argument is questionable, however.



#443363 Was it right for Jacob to favour Joseph?

Posted by Radey on 24 September 2012 - 08:16 PM in Theology

Joseph was envied by his brothers, but was this because of Jacob's preferential treatment, or because of his claims with the dreams and his upright character?

Christ was also delivered up to the rulers 'because of envy' by his brothers, but this was because of his claim to be Son of God, and his upright character.

I just see it as a statement of fact. I guess I can think of families where children accept Christ, and others don't. It's hard not to have more in common with the ones who do.

But no, it wasn't right. The ideal would be to treat all children the same, regardless of the choices they made in life.



#443362 Did Jesus preach the Gospel?

Posted by Radey on 24 September 2012 - 08:12 PM in Theology

I liked the 'declarative' versus 'persuasive' bit.

Shame he missed the bit about the Kingdom of God, although saying 'Jesus is Messiah' accounts for a fair bit of historical Jewish understanding.



#442574 2nd Peter/Jude/Enoch

Posted by Radey on 21 August 2012 - 01:06 AM in Theology

Thanks for posting this, I'm enjoying it but it's taking a few days to digest. I also like the links to Steven Cox's Tidings articles, thanks for posting those as well.

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:
Jude 1:1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:


Peter uses the word “granted” which carries the essence of “received by lot”. The implication is not hard to miss, true Christians have won the lottery (rather than earning it).

Peter's authority comes from him being an apostle. Jude's authority comes from being a brother to James (James the Just). James was the head of the Jerusalem church but had already been martyred by this time. We think of Paul as the big dog of the time, but James is who Paul went to for help. James and Jude were both (half) brothers to Jesus and both initially rejected Jesus at Nazareth (Matthew 4, Mark 6, Luke 6) but apparently they got over it (Acts 1:14).




This is interesting, I never considered that James was the one Paul went to, Galatians 1:19 is an interesting reference to James/Paul relationship.

I'm not sure about the lottery analogy though, I know we haven't earned it, but is winning the lottery an accurate analogy? We also have a part to play, and it's not filling in Bingo squares.



#442474 How correct does our interpretation need to be for salvation?

Posted by Radey on 17 August 2012 - 03:21 PM in Theology


* What about those who never heard the gospel? What about those in other nations before Christ was born? What about those living pre-Adam?


In answer to my own point, how about this?

Acts 17:26-31


What does this quote mean? It seems to imply all nations are from one man, Adam?



#442443 How correct does our interpretation need to be for salvation?

Posted by Radey on 16 August 2012 - 10:14 PM in Theology

God wants everyone saved.
That's a different question to why the Bible is written in such a way it can be interpreted multiple ways.
I think the answer to this question is the same reason Jesus spoke in parables. Matt 13.14-15. It appears to me God is not interested in casual acquaintances, only those interested in discovering more.



#442076 Ezek 44.11 - Why are burnt sacrifices reintroduced in the Kingdom?

Posted by Radey on 06 August 2012 - 02:29 PM in Theology

"Ezekiel's Temple in Adelaide" - that would be one option I suppose....


Well I remember a series of classes in my teens which compared it to the city of Adelaide, 1 mile square, exactly the same :) complete with overlaid diagrams. Nothing like being concentric!



#442060 Ezek 44.11 - Why are burnt sacrifices reintroduced in the Kingdom?

Posted by Radey on 06 August 2012 - 04:23 AM in Theology


Unfortunately, you have to speculate further. Was the house of Israel ever as a whole, ashamed of all that they had done? What happened to the line of Zadok, and if we can't locate the line of Zadok, then how can they ever obey the specific laws attached to this temple, in a literal sense?


um they may be resurrected? there's definitely talk of a priesthood that will stand 'forever' in 1 Sam 2.

Resurrected to be mortal or immortal?


oh no lets not start that one!



#442053 Ezek 44.11 - Why are burnt sacrifices reintroduced in the Kingdom?

Posted by Radey on 06 August 2012 - 12:41 AM in Theology

Radey

Huldah has highlighted the main point of the verse. With any section of scripture, if it tells us what it is designed to achieve then we should at least use that to help us. Personally I think this verse tells us that the vision presents an "ideal" law keeping nation, ie what Jerusalem could have looked like spiritually had Israel maintained obedience. The purpose being to show Israel what they might have been and so shame them.

I don't believe a temple like this and with ordinances like this will ever be built although I do believe that Jerusalem will be a centre of worship and the location of "the house of the Lord" (isaiah 2).

D


You probably won't believe this but I have never heard this point of view. What do I do with my Henry Sulley book now? I wonder why God gave such a detailed blueprint for something totally figurative?

Unfortunately, you have to speculate further. Was the house of Israel ever as a whole, ashamed of all that they had done? What happened to the line of Zadok, and if we can't locate the line of Zadok, then how can they ever obey the specific laws attached to this temple, in a literal sense?


um they may be resurrected? there's definitely talk of a priesthood that will stand 'forever' in 1 Sam 2.



#442022 Ezek 44.11 - Why are burnt sacrifices reintroduced in the Kingdom?

Posted by Radey on 05 August 2012 - 03:11 PM in Theology

All

The basics... :book:

This is what the vision of the temple is for:

"As for you, son of man, describe to the house of Israel the temple, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and they shall measure the plan. 11 And if they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the temple, its arrangement, its exits and its entrances, that is, its whole design; and make known to them as well all its statutes and its whole design and all its laws, and write it down in their sight, so that they may observe all its laws and all its statutes and carry them out. 12 This is the law of the temple: the whole territory on the top of the mountain all around shall be most holy. Behold, this is the law of the temple." Ezek 43:10-12

Why speculate beyond that?

D


I'm having trouble understanding this verse, or at least what you mean by quoting it, can you explain it further?



#441891 Ezek 44.11 - Why are burnt sacrifices reintroduced in the Kingdom?

Posted by Radey on 31 July 2012 - 07:32 AM in Theology


OK Fort. I'm confused.com. So burnt sacrifices aren't reintroduced. OK.


No that is not what I said. I have said this.

1. Burnt sacrifices will not be required of everyone living in the Kingdom.
2. People will not be required to visit the Temple to make sacrifices.
3. Sacrifices will not be required for any theological purpose, such as forgiveness.
4. Sacrifices will not be required at all.
5. Sacrifices will occasionally be used to teach people various principles, by way of illustration. The people being taught will not be choosing to make sacrifices in order to teach themselves, they will be witnessing sacrifices made by those teaching them.


Zech 14.16-21 'Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths. 17And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, there will be no rain on them. 18If the family of Egypt does not go up or enter, then no rain will fall on them; it will be the plague with which the LORD smites the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths. 19This will be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths.

20In that day there will be inscribed on the bells of the horses, “HOLY TO THE LORD.” And the cooking pots in the LORD’S house will be like the bowls before the altar. 21Every cooking pot in Jerusalem and in Judah will be holy to the LORD of hosts; and all who sacrifice will come and take of them and boil in them. And there will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts in that day.'

This seems to say that
1. Burnt sacrifices will be required of everyone living in the Kingdom.
2. People wil be required to visit the Temple to make sacrifices.
3. - not sure, but people will still need their sins forgiven in any case.
4. Sacrifices will be required if you like rain.
5. - not sure about that. What's the real difference between then and now, people will still sin and die. Maybe it will be their schoolmaster, like you said before about the nation of Israel coming out of Egypt.



#441853 The spirit and the new covenant

Posted by Radey on 29 July 2012 - 08:54 AM in Theology

Radey, at the risk of making this all sound circular - my understanding is that David's actions were the product of his heart, and he didn't want to repeat what he had done, so he asked God to help him with that.

But if you can like a God who hardens someones heart, then drowns them in the Red Sea for it, go for it.

It isn't as simple as that though is it? Pharaoh hardened his own heart before God ended up hardening his heart.

All of this seems to add up to God stepping in when he gets a response from us, one way or the other.


I see what you're trying to say here, and I think you're more right than I am. This is after I followed the apostolic directive and asked my husband at home :clap: He quoted me Rev 3 about how Christ stands at the door and knocks - so I guess that fits in with what you're saying, it's a mixture of both. And I see that you're saying Pharaoh hardened his heart initially then God hardened it completely, in the same way he 'gives them over to a reprobate mind'. Rom 1.28.



#441833 The spirit and the new covenant

Posted by Radey on 28 July 2012 - 05:33 AM in Theology


Radey, at the risk of making this all sound circular - my understanding is that David's actions were the product of his heart, and he didn't want to repeat what he had done, so he asked God to help him with that.


So you agree that he's asking God to help him, not asking God to change his heart for him? That's how I read it.

Pharaoh hardened his own heart before God ended up hardening his heart.


If Pharaoh hardened his own heart, why did God need to give it a double whammy?


All I'm trying to point out is whilst God is omnipotent and controls everything, the act of hardening is done by the individual. These expressions 'God hardened' 'God will write it on our hearts' 'God opened Lydia's heart' and all similar are a figure of speech. I originally brought it up to show that God writing on the hearts in the Kingdom Age does not indicate a new way of teaching, rather, a new way of listening by the previous hardhearted Jewish nation.



#441831 Ezek 44.11 - Why are burnt sacrifices reintroduced in the Kingdom?

Posted by Radey on 28 July 2012 - 05:14 AM in Theology

Still not following your line of thinking.

Radey asks

Why are aspects of the Law reintroduced in the Kingdom when Christ will be present, who died once for all?

and

Why are burnt sacrifices reintroduced in the Kingdom?


You reply

Because Jesus won't take kindly to being repeatedly asked to re-enact his crucifixion for the education of others.


Why was anyone ever going to suggest that Jesus be repeatedly asked to re-enact his crucifixion in the first place?

How are burnt sacrifices in Ezekiel's temple going to educate anyone when we have done without them for all this time?


How about this idea, Huldah. The law was holy, just and good and it taught valuable lessons. Seeing we keep the Memorial Supper only because the bridegroom is absent, we won't be doing that as a ritual in the Kingdom, in fact we'll be feasting with the bridegroom (or cooking in the corner tower, depending on how good you've been). So maybe the law will teach the same lessons it taught originally?

As to what Fort is trying to say, I think he's saying since we learnt from the crucifixion, it's unlikely Christ is going to reteach the same way. How do you see the mortal's being taught? The Bible?



#441829 Ezek 44.11 - Why are burnt sacrifices reintroduced in the Kingdom?

Posted by Radey on 28 July 2012 - 05:02 AM in Theology

Not a lot. I'm not sure what there will be for him to do other than direct the saints. He's not going to be running around giving Sunday School lessons to the millions of people on the earth.


Well if the twelve disciples are going to sit on the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, surely he will be overseer of all that?



#441827 Ezek 44.11 - Why are burnt sacrifices reintroduced in the Kingdom?

Posted by Radey on 28 July 2012 - 04:45 AM in Theology


I'm thinking [hoping] Fort is being a little sarcastic...


Nope. I really doubt Christ will be as accessible as Aslan during the Kingdom era. I don't see him walking casually through the crowds showing off his scars saying 'See these? Well now you know all about the Bible!'.


So what do you think Christ will do in the Kingdom?



#441826 The spirit and the new covenant

Posted by Radey on 28 July 2012 - 04:43 AM in Theology

Radey, at the risk of making this all sound circular - my understanding is that David's actions were the product of his heart, and he didn't want to repeat what he had done, so he asked God to help him with that.


So you agree that he's asking God to help him, not asking God to change his heart for him? That's how I read it.

Pharaoh hardened his own heart before God ended up hardening his heart.


If Pharaoh hardened his own heart, why did God need to give it a double whammy?



#441817 The spirit and the new covenant

Posted by Radey on 27 July 2012 - 08:47 PM in Theology

You're not liking it because it appears unjust, but it is how it is worded, unless we are meant to understand the words to not say what the words say (like when it is metaphorical). Right? Do you believe that God didn't harden Pharaoh's heart though?


Okay, I do concede that the wording indicates God does it. But if you can like a God who hardens someones heart, then drowns them in the Red Sea for it, go for it.

How do you understand David's prayer for a clean heart? Psa 51.10 How do you understand 2 Sam 24.1? David takes responsibility for his own actions in 2 Sam 24.10.



#441815 The spirit and the new covenant

Posted by Radey on 27 July 2012 - 07:17 PM in Theology

Acts 16.14 is interesting because "the Lord opened Lydia's heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul". So far the consensus exposition of "God changing our heart" seems to be that "we change our heart by reading God's word" or similar. I find it hard to read that sort of process into Acts 16.14. The process in Acts is that God works on our heart so that we come to respond to his word. We might read God's word all our lives and not respond.


I find it difficult to accept this view because it seems unjust - God picks some people to hear, and others not to, he hardens some, and writes on others. How then is he just in his judgments, if the person is not responsible for their actions? When Christ gave the parables, he said he did it in case they heard and understood - and this is the way I understand it - that Christ spoke in parable so only the enquiring would look into it and understand. The reason Christ did this is because his words had a moral impact, and therefore for the undiscerning to hear and become responsible was not in their best interests. I guess I see the heart issue the same way, it is both a response to God's teaching (through His word, or a preacher of it) aka the soil in the parable of the sower.



#441812 Ezek 44.11 - Why are burnt sacrifices reintroduced in the Kingdom?

Posted by Radey on 27 July 2012 - 06:13 PM in Theology

I'm not convinced there will be animal sacrifices. Ezekiel 38 is probably not meant to be taken completely literally in that Gog is unlikely to rely on shields and spears. Much of the theme of Hebrews is how Christ's death makes animal sacrifices obsolete - surely these arguments are as valid after Jesus return as before.


I'm not sure why you brought up Ezekiel 38 LivingInParadise (where's that, BTW?) unless it is to show that the language is applicable to the time it is written. I still believe Ezek 38 is literal in the sense that Gog will attack quite literally.

Anyway, we're talking about Ezek 44 here, did you have a look at that chapter?



#441803 The spirit and the new covenant

Posted by Radey on 27 July 2012 - 04:57 AM in Theology

Sorry to be picky, but 'they can change their heart' or 'God can change their heart'?

Interesting question. I would say both, interchangeably. Because God is omnipotent, and knows the end from the beginning, therefore Rom 9.18.
However, Rom 2.6 indicates that we are directly responsible for our own actions, so we harden/open/cleanse our own hearts.



#441801 The spirit and the new covenant

Posted by Radey on 27 July 2012 - 04:40 AM in Theology

Sorry. :) This is what I was referring to:

If you look at Deuteronomy 6 it explains how the law is written on the heart - by diligently teaching it.

What I meant was, Jeremiah seems to say the new covenant won't be put on the heart by teaching.

"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." [Jer. 31:31-34]



If you look at the context of the chapter, it's about God's undying love for Israel as his son. The preceding verses Jer 31.27-30 are obviously talking about God's intention to build and plant and restore justice.

I think it's simply a way of saying 'Finally, they will listen'. God, who knows the end from the beginning, can prophesy that they will change their heart and accept Him. I don't think you could read much more than that into it (that they will magically know God without learning about Him).

I guess I see it as the famous Ecc 3 passage about there being a time for everything. And this time it will be time to rebuild, replant, and restore. This is no more magical than God hardening Pharoah's heart, opening Lydia's heart and creating a clean heart in David.

'When your judgments come upon the earth, the people of the world learn righteousness.' Isa 26.9. This is why everyone will know God, from the least to the greatest.



#441787 The spirit and the new covenant

Posted by Radey on 26 July 2012 - 06:53 AM in Theology


[metaphor]?


maybe figure of speech? I don't think it's a metaphor.


whoops, should always google before you reply. A metaphor IS a figure of speech. lol. :D



#441786 Ezek 44.11 - Why are burnt sacrifices reintroduced in the Kingdom?

Posted by Radey on 26 July 2012 - 06:52 AM in Theology

But we didn't see the crucifixion, but we believe in it.


Indeed. I'm sure he's very relieved about that.

How about when you see the holes in his hands and feet?


I don't think it would be polite to look. Would be like staring at someone's reconstructed cleft palate.


What I'm saying is we believe in it, although we didn't see it, and I'm sure the general population will, when he returns as well. So what's the point of the sacrifices then? Old times sake?



#441784 Ezek 44.11 - Why are burnt sacrifices reintroduced in the Kingdom?

Posted by Radey on 26 July 2012 - 06:36 AM in Theology

Because Jesus won't take kindly to being repeatedly asked to re-enact his crucifixion for the education of others.

But we didn't see the crucifixion, but we believe in it. How about when you see the holes in his hands and feet?