The Meaning of Matthew 24:4-5

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard....Ok...sounds good. Lets take your comment in bold above. I answered this in post 177 on the Matthew 17 Thread: http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2499-The-meaning-of-Matt-17-27-(Coin-from-the-mouth-of-a-fish)&p=37216#post37216 Could you respond to this? That would be a good start.

Done!

[Timmy]

Charis',

Reading what you wrote in comment, and what RAM wrote, i should have waited until there was more time to cover the title/label: christ.

Hey there Timmy,

I'm glad you brought that up. The fact that John the Baptist was the "Elijah to come" is central to the NT declaration that Jesus was Messiah. There is no predicted "second coming of Elijah." That's all made up by Futurists and it has absolutely no foundation in Scripture whatsoever.

You didn't miss the "second coming." You missed the "coming of the son of man in power" when he judged Jerusalem just like he said he would. There is no prediction of a "second coming" in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 21).

As for a "second coming" - there are some Scriptures that seem not to have been fulilled when Christ came in judgment. So either Jesus and the apostles were wrong, or we are misunderstanding something. Preterists assume the latter. Futurists are forced to assert (bny implication) the former because the must deny many Scritpures and invent doctrines that are not found in Scripture (like the imaginary magical stretchy 2000+ year gap in Daniel 9:26-27, the re-built Temple that will be re-desolated by the re-vived Roman empire, etc.).


Who could disagree with that?

But then again, the fact that no one has a "corner on the truth" does not mean that no one is right and no one is wrong.


If that is true, then the prophecy tells us nothing because they asked "when would these things happen."


Man, I know all about that eraser! Mine was a mile long, and now it's worn down to a nub. I just erased huge chunks of things I held as true for the last two decades. You can read about it in my two threads Why I Quit Christianity and An Evolutionary Explanation of the Bible Wheel.


Those were always favorite passages of mine.

But if you cannot trust your reasoning, why do you trust the reasoning the led to that conclusion?


People have falsely reasoned that it was the "end times" during every generation for the last two thousand years. Why do you think you finally got it right? Please remember that any answer you give could also have been given anytime during the last 63 since the foundation of the modern secular state of Israel.

The Bible says the "end times" happened in the first century. It repeats this fact over and over and over again. John said it is - in the first century - the last hour. Hebrews says Christ spoke "in these last days" and that he was crucified "in the end of the age." Paul said the "ends of the ages" had come upon first century Christians, and Jesus said that the destruction of the Temple (which happened in 70 AD) would mark the end of the age.

The raving lunatic Harold Camping used Daniel to "prove" that new knowledge about the Bible would be given in the "end times" and he claimed to be the one who got that knowledge which is how he "knew" that the rapture would happen on May 21, 2011 to be followed by the annihilation of the entire universe on October 21, 2011. He said that the only way he could be wrong was if the Bible was wrong. Christians gave him 80 million dollars in the short span from 2005 - 2009. What are we supposed to believe - the hundreds of thousands of people who followed his false teachings were not "really" Christians? Or that they were Christians but the Holy Spirit somehow failed to inform them of the truth?

I think you are stretching the meaning of "many" way past its intended meaning. "Many" meant "more than a few" not a calculation based on the population of the globe 2000 years aft the prophecy! Christ explicitly spoke of the first century as "this generation" and locked it all down by specifying the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.


Where are you getting those ideas? The Bible makes no distinction between a "title" and a "name" and neither does the dictionary. The first definition of "title" is "name" - in many contexts they are synonyms.
ti·tle (ttl)n.
1. An identifying name given to a book, play, film, musical composition, or other work.
2. A general or descriptive heading, as of a book chapter.
3. a. Written material to be read by viewers that is included in a film or television show, typically presenting credits, narration, or dialogue. Often used in the plural.
b. A written piece of translated dialogue superimposed at the bottom of the frame during a film; a subtitle.
4. Law A heading that names a document, statute, or proceeding.
5. A division of a law book, declaration, or bill, generally larger than a section or article.
6. A written work that is published or about to be published: the titles in a press's fall catalog.
7. Law a. The coincidence of all the elements that constitute the fullest legal right to control and dispose of property or a claim.
b. The aggregate evidence that gives rise to a legal right of possession or control.
c. The instrument, such as a deed, that constitutes this evidence.
8. a. Something that provides a basis for or justifies a claim.
b. A legitimate or alleged right. See Synonyms at claim.
9. A formal appellation attached to the name of a person or family by virtue of office, rank, hereditary privilege, noble birth, or attainment or used as a mark of respect.
10. A descriptive name; an epithet.
11. Sports A championship.
12. Ecclesiastical a. A source of income or area of work required of a candidate for ordination in the Church of England.
b. A Roman Catholic church in or near Rome having a cardinal for its nominal head.

Now I am guessing that you are trying to build off of definition #9 - that's OK, I guess, but to build a doctrine off that, and to quibble about the difference between a "title" vs. a "name" when the Bible makes no such distinction? That seems very foolish to me. The Bible has enough confusion, why add to it?

Where did you get the "Yeshua ben Yusef? I've heard others call him Yeshua ben Miriam, since Joseph was not his real father.

And why do you say we should not call him "Jesus Christ?" That's what the Bible calls him over and over and over again. Why are you making up these strange unbiblical doctrines?


Of course no person would say that. You missed my point. It would be extremely foolish for a fake Obama who is coming in the name "Obama" to then say "I'm coming in the name of Obama" when he is in fact pretending to BE Obama! That's why Jesus never said that the false Christs would be saying "I am coming in the name of Christ." He said that they actually would be coming in his name - that is, pretending to be him - by saying "I am the Christ."

Man! So much confusion over every word of the Bible! What good is that book? God obviously cannot be the author of such confusion.


You'll need to explain what you mean. How is it not "in compete syntax with what surrounds it?"


The "Greek rendition" of the NT?

Man, we've gotta talk that one through. Do you really believe that Paul wrote his letters in Hebrew?

If the entire NT was originally written in Hebrew (or Aramaic) then why has God failed to preserve any record of it? And if God failed to preserve it, what good is it? And why do you believe the "Greek rendition of the N. T. Bible" at all?


Understood. It takes a lot of time two write these posts.

I look forward to your response. You are presenting many interesting and curious ideas and interpretations.

All the best,

Richard

Sir Richard,

Aloha, big Kahuna!

With utmost respect, it is desired for you to be able to close in on a not so alternate perspective (so much cultural differences): Middle East meets West STS.

The idea of views here being unbiblical is based on misunderstandings resulting from looking at the Bible--which is Oriental in both thought and expression--from an Occidental Westernized Graeco-Roman POV. From what is currently understood, at it's root, conflict arises through the differing modes of anthropomorphization, reasoning, and expression:three cases in point being parables and alternate interpretations, and the three point sermon versus Oriental discourse methods, and the contrasting way the Bible is studied in both cultures, respectively.

My answers alot of times befuddle the average Westerner simply due to alternate perspective and the expression of these things. Current attempts are to make the variation of view ameniably communicable without confusion, though if it is Bible we are talking about, no doubt, there will me many disagreements. . .which often have taken pages of explanation to clarify things.

currently there is not the time to cover and explain all three. So, provided is a severely condensed explanation as to what you may deem not Biblical, in answer to this quesry, the third issue mentioned above:

It has been thought this mention of Elijah, because of Jesus
--(?"Ja/Ya(h)-Zeus"?)<===deferring to preference of the Greek rendition of the name; and to avoid further confusion (as Debz first mentioned to me), attempts will be continued to avert from Hebraic terms of recognition--
words, "if you can believe," indicates this is Remez interpretation of scripture, such as "i have called my son out of Egypt" (which was already literally fulfilled in Exodus), yet said of Jesus in Mt. 2.15.

(In Rabbinic Bible interpretation, the
2nd mode==>Remez(=clue/the hinted) is applied after the
1st mode===>P'shat(= simple (called 'literal' by Westerners who grapple with these Oriental books. Two additional modes follow these two in this method of study revealed in the acronym Pardes(=orchard).

P'shat="simple" [grammatic historic plain sense of text]
a
Remez="clue" [word, phrase, etc, pointing to truths other than it's P'shat]
Drash (Midrash)="search" [metaphors/analogy/homiletics/allegory]
e
Sod="hidden secrets" (mystico/magickal) [letter/triplet transposed, symbols, bi-associations, etc.]




As for the comments on the second coming, can you consider I Thess. 4.15-18, starting with the phrase " We say this to you by the word of the Lord. . ." to be in reference to Yeshua's words in the Synoptics: Mt. 24.29-31, Mk. 13.24-27, and Lk. 21.22-27?
(And if so, can you recognize that "the days of vengeance" mentioned in Lk. 21.22 succeed the abomination of desolation?)




In reference to trusting what i think, well??? Ok, consider the meaning of II Pet. 1.20, which if understood properly, abolishes the notion of schisms and sectarianism as valid, as well as the notion that i in myself can understand prophecy (Rev. 19.10). I can trust God knows. When it is associative to living life IRL, i trust God shows his servants. This is why i trust 'the reasoning' and not 'my own reasoning' how the current conclusions are drawn.



i cannot speak for the Western World regarding false Messiahs, although historically, Israel qualifies only 50--i think the list begins with Thaddeus--to date since Yeshua's ressurection, which hardly constitutes "many" in the Biblical Oriental sense of the word.

How many have been noted since that time in the Western World?

If you cannot accept the notion that only fifty out of millions of Israeli's over the course of nearly 2000 years is not many, the context of the text verifies the proposal that this phrase might indeed be speaking of both false messiahs and followers in concurance, as verses like Mt. 24.24 show this kinship of false messiahs claims being touted (whether by forerunner or proclaimation in agreement).


As to end times, Westerners are blind to the Jewish calendar in relation to Bible Prophecy. In Israel, year 2008, all the leaders ofd Judaism converged on one day proclaiming it the onset of "Jacob's Troubles." Since that time, Israel has not failed to see the fulfillment rapidly unfolding simply through the signs of the time. (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!)

Our God's Temple shall be rebuilt and the sacrafices shall begin again. Preparations and financing towards this venture is nearly complete: bye-bye Dome on the Rock & Allah Akbar, too. This event earmarks the turning of events concerning this 7?(0) year period of time.



Why do i trust the reasoning behind these conclusions (and more unmentiooned things)?
i don't, thus the big eraser, with another gross on order.



When there is time, i will look into two issues you mention of quitting xianity and evolution.

After dying, i quit xianity--(as it is recognized to be today)--also.
Yet, this was through no devised design of my own.

Concerning evolution, there is a reason why it is still called a 'theory' even after these many decades. To date there is more scientific evidence to debunk the 'theory' than there is in support of it.
I'll hold fast to the beginning of the Torah concerning that, knowing the word "tov"="day" has always meant only one thing: 24 hours, beginning at sunset.

'...were favorite passages of mine...'



The mention of the greek rendition of the Bible ...oops...was a mix-up, thinking about the diaglott and meaning the Aramaic book of Matthew the whole time. (The comment was not inferrence that i either read or understand Aramaic, except in a very piecemeal manner. It is a hint that it's wondered if greek mss. are not copies of original aramaic mss. altogether. Reading classical greek compared to NT is hardly the same: words were used as synonyms in places they would not normally be used, incongruity of textual syntax, etc. The exception to this current notion would of course be Paul.




i believe the end times began happening in the first century and there are still things awaiting fulfillment which will complete them. Then it's onvorten to The Day of The LORD.

i do not believe in a pre- or mid-trib rapture.

i am neither preterist nor futurist, but prefer to understand that sufficient onto each day are their own evil.

To try to say that "this is apsolutely what this (unfulfilled) prophecy is saying" is like conspiracy theory or trying to ascertain motives through past history. . .operating under the assumption that the theory of causality is correct. It looks fine on paper, but it never plays out like it is written down. It's like saying i can determine where an ostrich will land if i use it in my cannon because i have the capacity to determine the logistics of a cannon ball. We may be able to choose our own actions, but the results are another story altogether.

In terms of the word christ, when recognized as a title. . .yeah, specifically 9, but not necessarily in complete exclusion of the definitive parameters you so graciously provided.

Do you think that Bible prophecy has all been filfilled (to the extent that you think it will be fulfilled) or what?

??????

Hey these lil' smilies are kix!





Hope everything was covered satisfactorily
(If not holla')


God bless us everyone.

Timmy

[TheForgiven]

Our God's Temple shall be rebuilt and the sacrafices shall begin again. Preparations and financing towards this venture is nearly complete: bye-bye Dome on the Rock & Allah Akbar, too. This event earmarks the turning of events concerning this 7?(0) year period of time.

Could you please provide us with scriptural references explaining the return of the animal sacrificial system? The New Testament teaches that Jesus satisfied all sacrifices with His own body. The New Testament also teaches that the sacrifices we offer are from our hearts, and our lips, and not by what animal we're required to offer from our flock; not that we, in our day, have a flock. I don't know about you, but I wasn't raised to herd sheep, oxen, goat, bull, or ram. I can barbecue a mean half-slab of pig though.

I can understand the desire to see the dome of the rock removed, but certainly not to be replaced by a restoration of Judaism; that system was abolished at the cross in 30AD, and fulfilled all-together by 70AD. All of the law and the prophets was completed by the date of atonement/wrath, beginning from the passover, to the day of atonement in 70AD. Since that time, we live under the laws of Christ.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Sir Richard,

Aloha, big Kahuna!

With utmost respect, it is desired for you to be able to close in on a not so alternate perspective (so much cultural differences): Middle East meets West STS.

The idea of views here being unbiblical is based on misunderstandings resulting from looking at the Bible--which is Oriental in both thought and expression--from an Occidental Westernized Graeco-Roman POV. From what is currently understood, at it's root, conflict arises through the differing modes of anthropomorphization, reasoning, and expression:three cases in point being parables and alternate interpretations, and the three point sermon versus Oriental discourse methods, and the contrasting way the Bible is studied in both cultures, respectively.

My answers alot of times befuddle the average Westerner simply due to alternate perspective and the expression of these things. Current attempts are to make the variation of view ameniably communicable without confusion, though if it is Bible we are talking about, no doubt, there will me many disagreements. . .which often have taken pages of explanation to clarify things.

Warm greetings to you, Kind Timmy!

I very much like your careful style of writing. We are treading on some disputable questions, so we need all the clarity we can muster.

Personally, I see the "East vs. West" points of view as corresponding well with the two hemispheres of the human brain. And I have long seen the Hebrew Old and Greek New Testaments as a manifestation of this fundamental duality of perception that is required for a fully functioning mind. I also see it in the Eastern (Artistic) and Western (Verbal) branches of the church. I say this in way of introduction to the ideas that will follow.

currently there is not the time to cover and explain all three. So, provided is a severely condensed explanation as to what you may deem not Biblical, in answer to this quesry, the third issue mentioned above:

It has been thought this mention of Elijah, because of Jesus
--(?"Ja/Ya(h)-Zeus"?)<===deferring to preference of the Greek rendition of the name; and to avoid further confusion (as Debz first mentioned to me), attempts will be continued to avert from Hebraic terms of recognition--

The rumor that there is a connection between the Hellenization of Hebrew names like Moses vs. Mosheh, Elias vs. Eliyahu, Jesus vs. Yeshua, and the names of pagan gods like Zeus is utterly fallacious. How did you come to believe this? Do you read Greek? Do you know anything about the language? Do you know those names were used by the Jews when the translated the Hebrew OT into the Greek LXX?

words, "if you can believe," indicates this is Remez interpretation of scripture, such as "i have called my son out of Egypt" (which was already literally fulfilled in Exodus), yet said of Jesus in Mt. 2.15.

The statement in Matt 2:15 was applied typologically to Christ. That doesn't work with John the Baptist as Elijah because he was the antitype that fulfilled Elijah prophecy. It would be like saying that Jesus didn't "really" fulfill his role as Messiah, but was only a typological fulfillment of the messianic prophecies. There is no "second coming of Elijah" taught anywhere in the Bible.

And I see no reason to believe that the phrase "if you can believe" indicates a remez intepretation. You can believe that if you want, but I think you just made it up to fit your futurist theory of a second coming. And I believe this is confirmed by the fact that your thesis is contradicted by the parallel passage in which there is no hint of "remez."

Matthew 17:11 Jesus answered and said to them, "Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. 12 "But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands."

See that. Christ said "I say to you that Elijah has come already." No hint of any future coming. And a future coming wouldn't make any sense anyway because the purpose of Elijah was to be a forerunner of Messiah and the "great and terrible day of the Lord" that would mark the end of the Old Covenant age with the destruction of the Temple. John the Baptist fulfilled both roles. He was the herald of Christ and he warned of the judgment that would come down upon first century Jerusalem.

(In Rabbinic Bible interpretation, the
2nd mode==>Remez(=clue/the hinted) is applied after the
1st mode===>P'shat(= simple (called 'literal' by Westerners who grapple with these Oriental books. Two additional modes follow these two in this method of study revealed in the acronym Pardes(=orchard).

P'shat="simple" [grammatic historic plain sense of text]
a
Remez="clue" [word, phrase, etc, pointing to truths other than it's P'shat]
Drash (Midrash)="search" [metaphors/analogy/homiletics/allegory]
e
Sod="hidden secrets" (mystico/magickal) [letter/triplet transposed, symbols, bi-associations, etc.]

Yes, of course. Thanks for the review. It might help others who are following our conversation. Myself, I've been familiar with the Garden of PRDS for many years.

As for the comments on the second coming, can you consider I Thess. 4.15-18, starting with the phrase " We say this to you by the word of the Lord. . ." to be in reference to Yeshua's words in the Synoptics: Mt. 24.29-31, Mk. 13.24-27, and Lk. 21.22-27?
(And if so, can you recognize that "the days of vengeance" mentioned in Lk. 21.22 succeed the abomination of desolation?)

That would be an interesting study, given that we know that the destruction of Jerusalem in Luke 21 and Matt 24 and Mark 13 was fulfilled in 70 AD.

But to your specific question - Luke 21:22 speaks of all the "days of judgment" that spanned the 42 months of destruction by the Romans. I don't see it as speaking of a time after the AoD. Rather, the AoD was just part of the desolation predicted and fulfilled.

In reference to trusting what i think, well??? Ok, consider the meaning of II Pet. 1.20, which if understood properly, abolishes the notion of schisms and sectarianism as valid, as well as the notion that i in myself can understand prophecy (Rev. 19.10). I can trust God knows. When it is associative to living life IRL, i trust God shows his servants. This is why i trust 'the reasoning' and not 'my own reasoning' how the current conclusions are drawn.

Well, I think it's better to drop any idea that your ideas are "justified" by special revelation of God. We should all see ourselves as equals and we should judge righteous judgment which is based on logic and facts. Yes, that includes the facts in the Bible, but they must be evaluated by our own weak human mind like anything else. If you want to believe that God is the source of some specific insight - great! Believe it all day. But don't forget that it is your own private belief and that no public statement can be confirmed or proven by your own private beliefs.

i cannot speak for the Western World regarding false Messiahs, although historically, Israel qualifies only 50--i think the list begins with Thaddeus--to date since Yeshua's ressurection, which hardly constitutes "many" in the Biblical Oriental sense of the word.

And what is your source for knowledge about the semantic domain of "many" in the "Biblical Oriental sense of the word?"

If you cannot accept the notion that only fifty out of millions of Israeli's over the course of nearly 2000 years is not many, the context of the text verifies the proposal that this phrase might indeed be speaking of both false messiahs and followers in concurance, as verses like Mt. 24.24 show this kinship of false messiahs claims being touted (whether by forerunner or proclaimation in agreement).

You have missed the point. Christ was talking about the 40 year period up to 70 AD. He was not predicting "many" as a percentage of the population over the span of the next two, or three, or four millennia.

As to end times, Westerners are blind to the Jewish calendar in relation to Bible Prophecy. In Israel, year 2008, all the leaders ofd Judaism converged on one day proclaiming it the onset of "Jacob's Troubles." Since that time, Israel has not failed to see the fulfillment rapidly unfolding simply through the signs of the time. (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!)

Seems to me that almost everyone is blind about most things. But the folks on this forum are not blind to the Biblical calendar. How could we be? Christ fulfilled the Passover, was resurrected on Firstfruits and the Holy Spirit was given on Pentecost. It's elementary stuff that anyone who desires serious knowledge of the Bible is required to know.

Our God's Temple shall be rebuilt and the sacrafices shall begin again. Preparations and financing towards this venture is nearly complete: bye-bye Dome on the Rock & Allah Akbar, too. This event earmarks the turning of events concerning this 7?(0) year period of time.

Sorry. There's not a word in the Bible that predicts a rebuilt temple. And besides, the concept is absurd given the Biblical Oriental typology of Christ and His Church as the True Temple of God. To go back to the physical type after the real has come? Absurd! Blasphemous! Or that's what I'd say id I were still a Christian I suppose.

Why do i trust the reasoning behind these conclusions (and more unmentiooned things)?
i don't, thus the big eraser, with another gross on order.

Excellent! Could you sense me a carton? I'm running low myself!

When there is time, i will look into two issues you mention of quitting xianity and evolution.

Great! I look forward to it. But I know how quickly time flies ...

After dying, i quit xianity--(as it is recognized to be today)--also.
Yet, this was through no devised design of my own.

Concerning evolution, there is a reason why it is still called a 'theory' even after these many decades. To date there is more scientific evidence to debunk the 'theory' than there is in support of it.

Ohhh my. I'm really sorry you said that. I suppose you think that Gravity is just a theory too? And the Theory of Electromagnetism? Just a theory? YOu have been sorely misinformed my friend. In a scientific context, the word "theory" does not mean "an unproven hypothesis." It means "an body of knowledge that explains facts." This is one of the most pathetic errors propagated by ignorant religious teachers. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame you. You have received this false teaching from others who are deliberately misleading people in the name of their religion.

I'll hold fast to the beginning of the Torah concerning that, knowing the word "tov"="day" has always meant only one thing: 24 hours, beginning at sunset.

'...were favorite passages of mine...'

The word "tov" means "good" not "day." The word "yom" means day. And we know it doesn't necessarily mean one 24 hour day because the whole group of six days is called a "day" in Gen 2:4.

The mention of the greek rendition of the Bible ...oops...was a mix-up, thinking about the diaglott and meaning the Aramaic book of Matthew the whole time. (The comment was not inferrence that i either read or understand Aramaic, except in a very piecemeal manner. It is a hint that it's wondered if greek mss. are not copies of original aramaic mss. altogether. Reading classical greek compared to NT is hardly the same: words were used as synonyms in places they would not normally be used, incongruity of textual syntax, etc. The exception to this current notion would of course be Paul.

Yes, I know about Matthew. It may have originally been written in Aramaic. But the rest? No way. So I don't see the point.

i believe the end times began happening in the first century and there are still things awaiting fulfillment which will complete them. Then it's onvorten to The Day of The LORD.

So the "end times" have been going on for two thousand years? I don't see how that could work.

i do not believe in a pre- or mid-trib rapture.

I don't believe in any kind of "rapture."

i am neither preterist nor futurist, but prefer to understand that sufficient onto each day are their own evil.

Well, if you study it for a while I think you will find yourself coming to certain conclusions that eliminate one or the other of those two possibilities.

To try to say that "this is apsolutely what this (unfulfilled) prophecy is saying" is like conspiracy theory or trying to ascertain motives through past history. . .operating under the assumption that the theory of causality is correct. It looks fine on paper, but it never plays out like it is written down. It's like saying i can determine where an ostrich will land if i use it in my cannon because i have the capacity to determine the logistics of a cannon ball. We may be able to choose our own actions, but the results are another story altogether.

Good point. Preterism is far an away the best interpretation I have seen, but it's far from perfect. So I have concluded that the Biblical eschatology is logically incoherent.

In terms of the word christ, when recognized as a title. . .yeah, specifically 9, but not necessarily in complete exclusion of the definitive parameters you so graciously provided.

My point was that you are making up doctrines based on distinctions not found in the Bible. The Bible makes no distinction between a name and a title.

Do you think that Bible prophecy has all been filfilled (to the extent that you think it will be fulfilled) or what?

I never committed myself to that proposition. How could I know if there's an unfulfilled prophecy somewhere in the Bible. So I just talk about things I can know, like the Olivet Discourse was fulflled in 70 AD.

??????

Hey these lil' smilies are kix!





Hope everything was covered satisfactorily
(If not holla')


God bless us everyone.

Timmy

Yeah - they rock! I need to get more.

Great chatting!

Richard

[Timmy]

RAM,

It's gr8 to meet one who makes me consider things relative, yet beyond what is written on the page. There is too much food for thought to just swiftly wizz off another reply without edit--like the 'oops' again of stating "tov" to be "day" when it is not--or covering further potential questions that have been raised in this mind.

Thank you Sir, may i have another?
THREE THUMBS UP!

For the above reasoning, as well as current time constraints, the response written will be more thouroughly contemplated and edited accordingly before it is copied as finished text in this magnificent forum.


Sincerely,
Timmy

Could you please provide us with scriptural references explaining the return of the animal sacrificial system? The New Testament teaches that Jesus satisfied all sacrifices with His own body. The New Testament also teaches that the sacrifices we offer are from our hearts, and our lips, and not by what animal we're required to offer from our flock; not that we, in our day, have a flock. I don't know about you, but I wasn't raised to herd sheep, oxen, goat, bull, or ram. I can barbecue a mean half-slab of pig though.

I can understand the desire to see the dome of the rock removed, but certainly not to be replaced by a restoration of Judaism; that system was abolished at the cross in 30AD, and fulfilled all-together by 70AD. All of the law and the prophets was completed by the date of atonement/wrath, beginning from the passover, to the day of atonement in 70AD. Since that time, we live under the laws of Christ.

Joe

Brother Joe,

In the average Israeli's mind it seems thought that Judaism in it's full import is to be restored. Nothing could be further from the facts, yet without the Law and the Prophets, of what significance is what follows it? Aspirations superceeding sensibility, they seem to neglect considering the physical sign given at Yom Kippur holy days following Yeshua's resurrection. ( After the High Holy Day is fulfilled with all sacrafices completed, a crimson cloth is hung for all to see at the temple. As a sign of acceptance, this cloth turns from blood red to white. After Yeshua's resurrection, this did not happen again.)

Since it's thought all of the law and the prophets is already fulfilled altogether, it is desired to understand how Mt. 5.17-19 fits into this idea.

Abolished?????
Isn't that too strong of a word compared to what is written.
Obsolete towards intended purpose perhaps, but not abolished.

In Hebrews we can glean the clearest understanding of what actually transpired. The New Covenant is misunderstood to be something different altogether when it is not. The shadow was never completely done away with. In the physical world, all recognizable objective things have a shadow, and regarding Yaweh's covenant being something active on earth, it is no different.

It is the Levitical ordinances (rites and decorum) which were and are--not abolished, but rather--now shadow of their "metathesis," a transition of kingship/priesthood and sacrafice from proxy to establishment in fact.

The New Covenant is actually the Old Covenant REnewed, not abolished. Hebrews 7-8 reveals it is only the levitical ordinances which are no longer valid as effacious; but this does not mean they are abolished. They are fading, even like unto a shadow.



Please do not misunderstand what is about to be written.

It is not faith(fulness) in any sacrafice, that brings us into relationship with God.

Was Avraham Avinu justified by our Abba through any sacrifice?
There is only one thing that pleases God: Heb. 11.6/Gen. 15.6.
Wasn't it his actions that confirmed his conformity with what God said would be?

It is not by works we have done or will do that God accounts us blameless in His eyes.
The issue of actual sacrafice is two-fold: establishing covenant and remembrance through memorial of covenant.

Growing into an everlasting relationship with God is a process: from affirmation onto consideration onto belief onto conviction onto trust onto confidence onto reliance onto dependence onto identification (repeat). [The aforementioned process described is merely a generalization and not neccesarily the same for everyone.

Our actions are indicators of how much we 'fear'<===(in every sense of the word, from simple regard all the way to trembling) God.


You ask for reference work about sacrafice, and though there is no scripture stating is it or will be abolished, read Isaiah from chapter 52 onward and you will see they are going to be re-instituted--even the red heffer. Personal thoughts (but possibly wrong) are that they will be brought together as one, anti-type and shadow physically manifested as memorial, when Yeshua comes again and reigns over all the earth.

There really is no rejoicing here in the destruction of the Dome or abolishment of all other world religions, except in the fact of those who turn away from them onto the one who made all that we know to exist, particularily ourselves, in the first place.

Though i currently try to abide by the health laws, pork is not even considered to be food fit for humans--not because of what i think, but because what is written. Since it was quit with, never again has any flu been contracted (11 yrs now), as was once the regular bi-yearly phenomena here. (Abstinance of this may or may not be relative, though health journals do indicate that it may factor into such as well as things like leukemia.)

On another note, if the world were that serious about eliminating the few factions of radical Islam, pig lard would be used as a lubricant for all munitions.

If i were still fan of a good pig barbeque, i'de probably be asking for your address and doing a job search in your neck of the woods.


Until later,
God Bless us everyone,
Timmy

p.s. Herding sheep is not even an interest anymore, though it has helped in many people skill applications, particularily in the area of patience. i may not own sheep, but have been thinking about lama's lately. Still, i'll probably have to remain satisfied with the Naterus Red Bellied Pirahnas and the little chickies they eat...as well as the African Dwarf Frogs bouncing around animating the waters here.

[Charisma]

Hi debz,

e.g. the "42nd Generation"?

I liked this bit of detective work, and wanted to ask if you've ever noticed that the beginning of Matthew (1v1) refers to 'the generation' (singular) of Jesus Christ? It is a similar style to the the OT introduction to a list of descendants, which doesn't apply to Jesus (in one sense). In another sense, though, it does, as we are His children as well as His brethren. Nevertheless, that's the end of it. We are of the same 'generation' as the first apostles.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.

[debz]

Hi debz,

I liked this bit of detective work, and wanted to ask if you've ever noticed that the beginning of Matthew (1v1) refers to 'the generation' (singular) of Jesus Christ? It is a similar style to the the OT introduction to a list of descendants, which doesn't apply to Jesus (in one sense). In another sense, though, it does, as we are His children as well as His brethren. Nevertheless, that's the end of it. We are of the same 'generation' as the first apostles.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.

Yes, Charisma -- I believe that is what it is referring to!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi debz,

I liked this bit of detective work, and wanted to ask if you've ever noticed that the beginning of Matthew (1v1) refers to 'the generation' (singular) of Jesus Christ? It is a similar style to the the OT introduction to a list of descendants, which doesn't apply to Jesus (in one sense). In another sense, though, it does, as we are His children as well as His brethren. Nevertheless, that's the end of it. We are of the same 'generation' as the first apostles.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.

Hi Charisma,

Yes, we are of the same "generation" in that sense. But there is a source of confusion here because of the KJV English that inaccurately translated two different words as "generation." Specifically, the word used in Matthew 1:1 is genesis (in the sense of "origin, nativity"):

Strong's 1078
γενεσις genesis {ghen'-es-is} n f AV - generation 1, natural 1, nature 1; 3
1) source, origin
1a) a book of one's lineage, i.e. in which his ancestry or progeny are enumerated
2) used of birth, nativity
3) of that which follows origin, viz. existence, life 3a) the wheel of life (Jas 3:6), other explain it, the wheel of human origin which as soon as men are born begins to run, i.e. its course of life

This is similar, but different, than the word used when Christ spoke of the first century generation that "would not pass away" before "all things were fulfilled" which he spoke concerning the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD:

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Strong's 1074
γενεα genea {ghen-eh-ah'} n f AV - generation 37, time 2, age 2, nation 1; 42
1) fathered, birth, nativity
2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy 2b) metaph. a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse race
3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time
4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years

When Christ said "this generation" he meant "this generation" - i.e. the generation to whom he was speaking in the first century. We are not that generation.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

RAM,

It's gr8 to meet one who makes me consider things relative, yet beyond what is written on the page. There is too much food for thought to just swiftly wizz off another reply without edit--like the 'oops' again of stating "tov" to be "day" when it is not--or covering further potential questions that have been raised in this mind.

Thank you Sir, may i have another?
THREE THUMBS UP!

For the above reasoning, as well as current time constraints, the response written will be more thouroughly contemplated and edited accordingly before it is copied as finished text in this magnificent forum.


Sincerely,
Timmy

Thanks for the good words Timmy!

And don't worry about making your posts perfect. We all make mistakes. I do it all the time. That's why we need to give lots of grace to each other.

Silly things like mistakenly writing "tov" for "yom" are nothing to worry about. So write freely! It will all come out in the wash.

All the very best,

Richard

[Brother Les]

Timmy
Since it's thought all of the law and the prophets is already fulfilled altogether, it is desired to understand how Mt. 5.17-19 fits into this idea.

The Old Creation of Heaven and Earth has passed. You should know what the term Heaven and Earth means to the Hebrew Peoples.

Abolished?????
Isn't that too strong of a word compared to what is written.
Obsolete towards intended purpose perhaps, but not abolished.


In Hebrews we can glean the clearest understanding of what actually transpired. The New Covenant is misunderstood to be something different altogether when it is not. The shadow was never completely done away with. In the physical world, all recognizable objective things have a shadow, and regarding Yaweh's covenant being something active on earth, it is no different.

It is the Levitical ordinances (rites and decorum) which were and are--not abolished, but rather--now shadow of their "metathesis," a transition of kingship/priesthood and sacrafice from proxy to establishment in fact.

The New Covenant is actually the Old Covenant REnewed, not abolished. Hebrews 7-8 reveals it is only the levitical ordinances which are no longer valid as effacious; but this does not mean they are abolished. They are fading, even like unto a shadow.

The term in not abolish, the term is fulfill. What is fulfilled is the marriage covenant contract. The Mosiac Covenant wife, murdered her husband. The marriage is over and what was left to do was the fulfilling of the terms of that marriage contract. The terms of Blessings and the terms of Curses. Israel was Divorced from being in Covenant with YHWH and swept to the Nations by Assyria. Judah, Judea, Jerusalem, being the daughter of the priesthood was to be killed for her harlotry, and she was. Abolishment of the Mosaic marriage contract? no.... It was Fulfilled. The Hebrew writer states for a NEW Covenant I give for the first is obsolete and ready to disappear at the time of the Hebrew writings. All of the Tebernacle of David had to die to and from the OC marriage. Total destruction of the old Heaven and Earth and a total New Creation of the Heaven and Earth of YHWH/Christ.

Matt 5:
17`Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets -- I did not come to throw down, but to fulfill;

18for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass.



Hebrews 8
1And the sum concerning the things spoken of [is]: we have such a chief priest, who did sit down at the right hand of the throne of the greatness in the heavens,

2of the holy places a servant, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord did set up, and not man,

3for every chief priest to offer both gifts and sacrifices is appointed, whence [it is] necessary for this one to have also something that he may offer;

4for if, indeed, he were upon earth, he would not be a priest -- (there being the priests who are offering according to the law, the gifts,

5who unto an example and shadow do serve of the heavenly things, as Moses hath been divinely warned, being about to construct the tabernacle, for `See (saith He) thou mayest make all things according to the pattern that was shewn to thee in the mount;') --

6and now he hath obtained a more excellent service, how much also of a better covenant is he mediator, which on better promises hath been sanctioned,

7for if that first were faultless, a place would not have been sought for a second.

8For finding fault, He saith to them, `Lo, days come, saith the Lord, and I will complete with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, a new covenant,

9not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day of My taking [them] by their hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt -- because they did not remain in My covenant, and I did not regard them, saith the Lord, --

10because this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord, giving My laws into their mind, and upon their hearts I will write them, and I will be to them for a God, and they shall be to Me for a people;

11and they shall not teach each his neighbour, and each his brother, saying, Know thou the Lord, because they shall all know Me from the small one of them unto the great one of them,

12because I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawlessnesses I will remember no more;' --

13in the saying `new,' He hath made the first old, and what doth become obsolete and is old [is] nigh disappearing.