Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

666


  • Please log in to reply
363 replies to this topic

#151 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 04:02 PM

I think the idea is that they "are known" because they are chosen. Just as Judas was chosen to be a disciple so the Jews were chosen to be God's people (Amos 3:2).

So the idea of "never knowing" would be that they were not faithful to their calling.

Mark,

I deleted my previous post because I wasn't saying what I wanted to say.

Edited by Chrlsp, 10 April 2012 - 04:08 PM.


#152 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 280 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 01:25 AM

Hello Mark,

Yes, God knows who belong to him from the very beginning but we do not. It is quite clear from scripture that the wheat and the tares grow together and that although some men's works go "before them" others will remain to be exposed at the judgment.

It is an axiom that falsehood can only develop from the corruption of truth. While I acknowledge that in the first century (pre-70) there was a deliberate "wrecking movement" that was planted in the early ecclesia by Judaists (false brethren) who never had the intention of embracing the truth....it is also true that many who did initially embrace the truth apostasized. They went in such a direction that they caused a split and John declared that they "were not of us". The fact that they had separated themselves demonstrated this .....it does not mean that they were "never of us" or that at some stage they did not hold correct doctrines. Your own experience will teach you that it is possible for someone to start the "race" with enthusaism and ideals only to drift into wrong doctrines etc......this is not the fault of God's spirit but of human nature (as you point out). The foreknowledge of God is a separate issue.....yes God does know who are his from the beginning........but we do not..... We all have freewill and most people begin their walk faithfully........but error and apostasy creeps in.

If Israel is not the "true church" from which all others flow why is she called a harlot in the OT? Why does Christ accuse her of being responsible for the death of all the prophets? (I don't even have to go to Revelation to demonstrate this). Was not the Messiah rejected and put to death by this church? And now she is back in the land and still she refuses to acknowledge the Messiah. Christians are not allowed to preach in Israel.


So, who is the "mother of harlots" - - the one (Israel) who recieved the oracles of God, the promises, the prophets, the Messiah, the New Covenant......and rejected it all and went astray.......or, the one (Catholic Church) that was bent and crooked from the very beginning? You cannot commit apostasy if you never had the truth to start with. Only true believers can commit apostasy.

Edited by Biblaridion, 11 April 2012 - 01:36 AM.


#153 Jon D

Jon D

    Pi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 807 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 03:10 AM


I brought up the "tradition" of a centenarian John riding horseback around Asia Minor because this is what some of the "early church" fathers relate. Of course it is also affirmed that he was killed by immersion in boiling oil. We cannot vouch for the reliability of any of these "traditions" and they are most likely fabrications. The reason I mention this is because a post - 96 AD revelation would make John a very, very, old man and the last remaining apostle and probably one of the last remaining first century Christians of his generation. So I mentioned the "tradition" to demonstrate the absurdity of a late (traditional) date....a very old John recieving Revelation and then upon his release riding around distributing his message and finally being boiled alive (by Domitian?). This scenario is not very credible.


But I have already agreed that Revelation does not date from AD96, but from AD70 at the latest. So there is no point arguing against an AD96 date, when I clearly rejected that myself. The problem is that you seem to associate a "continuous historic" type of understanding of the book of Revelation with an assumed AD96 date for it. But there is no such necessary association.


This is a very good point. An individual's exposition of Revelation should not depend on when the book was written - as we're not told when it was written within the inspired text. Our understanding should be based on comparing spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor 2:13-14), and then applying prophetic principles to history.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus


#154 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,400 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 03:01 PM

Just a test:

Matt 7:17-19

Romans 2:28-29

Galatians 2:4
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#155 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 280 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 11:32 PM

This is a very good point. An individual's exposition of Revelation should not depend on when the book was written - as we're not told when it was written within the inspired text. Our understanding should be based on comparing spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor 2:13-14), and then applying prophetic principles to history.



I am sorry, but I beg to disagree. It is crucial to understand all biblical writings in context. For example: Does it matter if the Olivet prophecy was writen before AD 70 or after? Some scholars would have us believe that all the gospels (except possibly Mark) were writen after AD 70. This has two consequences.......firstly it questions the reliability of the record........something recorded long after the events can hardly be called an "eye witness" account (like the fourth Gospel is).....and secondly....if the Gospels were late creations then how can we vouch for the reliability of the prophecies (the fall of Jerusalem in the Olivet prophecy)?

So, it is crucial that we understand when a book was writen and why it was writen. As for comparing "spiritual things with spiritual" it is a cry that has become meaningless.....because those who are most vociferous in uttering this rallying cry are the very ones who do not practice what they preach. I have constantly employed intertextuality to demonstrate the points that I make.......but alas, it makes little difference.

Edited by Biblaridion, 11 April 2012 - 11:42 PM.


#156 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 280 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 11:53 PM

Revelation should not depend on when the book was written - as we're not told when it was written within the inspired text.


Hello,


We are not told the date when Revelation was written, however we are told that........

........things which must shortly take place (Rev 1:1)


It would be surpising if these "things" happened 66 years after the resurrection when all first century Christians were dead (except John)


Moreover, if you want to delve into the inspired text there are plenty of clues as to when it was written such as the identity of 666 (which we have already discussed)........five are fallen...one is (i.e. Nero the persecutor of the church). There is plenty of other intertextual evidence (scripture with scripture).....however, this is ignored and yet, I constantly hear.....we must compare "scripture with scripture". How about comparing the Olivet prophecy with the seals (conclusion?)......how about comparing the seals with the circumstances in Acts and the Epistles (conclusion?) how about comparing the cursed fig tree in the gospel with the fig tree in Revelation (conclusion?), how about comparing the harlot in Ezekiel with the harlot in Revelation (conclusion?)

Edited by Mark Taunton, 12 April 2012 - 08:11 AM.
Fix formatting of Bible reference, to avoid Bible tagger problem


#157 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 01:43 AM

"...Things which must shorty come to pass"

Refers to those things which come to pass after the resurrection of the body of Christ.

#158 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,772 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 07:03 AM

"...Things which must shorty come to pass"

Refers to those things which come to pass after the resurrection of the body of Christ.


I can't see any reason for this in the context of Revelation 1. John tells us the circumstances in which he received the revelation. Yet from what you say, it seems we should interpret "things which must shortly come to pass" as (including) "things that have already come to pass"? We know that John was not already in Patmos when Jesus was raised from the dead!

Edited by Mark Taunton, 12 April 2012 - 07:07 AM.


#159 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,772 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 08:00 AM

Yes, God knows who belong to him from the very beginning but we do not. It is quite clear from scripture that the wheat and the tares grow together and that although some men's works go "before them" others will remain to be exposed at the judgment.


I agree with you. It's good to agree! Sorry, I can't agree with everything you go on to say, though :(.

It is an axiom that falsehood can only develop from the corruption of truth.


Big problem there: where is this said in scripture? In particular, where does scripture ever talk about "the corruption of truth"? The words of that phrase are all individually biblical, but is their combination in that way biblical? (Compare "immortal soul".) I can't find "corruption of truth" ever mentioned in scripture. Instead, things that are corruptible get corrupted, while truth is, by definition - axiomatically, if you like - incorruptible!

While I acknowledge that in the first century (pre-70) there was a deliberate "wrecking movement" that was planted in the early ecclesia by Judaists (false brethren) who never had the intention of embracing the truth....it is also true that many who did initially embrace the truth apostasized. They went in such a direction that they caused a split and John declared that they "were not of us". The fact that they had separated themselves demonstrated this .....it does not mean that they were "never of us" or that at some stage they did not hold correct doctrines.


Again, the last part here is not in agreement with scripture. If John says (in the past tense, not the present: not "they are not (now) of us") "they were not of us" then it follows they were never "of us". Yet you are trying to say the opposite. This is another problem!

Your own experience will teach you that it is possible for someone to start the "race" with enthusaism and ideals only to drift into wrong doctrines etc......this is not the fault of God's spirit but of human nature (as you point out). The foreknowledge of God is a separate issue.....yes God does know who are his from the beginning........but we do not..... We all have freewill and most people begin their walk faithfully........but error and apostasy creeps in.


Yes, broadly I agree. But the crucial point is that, in your own words, apostasy creeps in. It does not begin from truth, from inside the true church, but has quite separate origins. And that's the crux of the issue we're discussing. Is there only one tree, one church, or more than one - a true one, and a false one? (or, false ones plural, albeit having a common origin in the devil)

If Israel is not the "true church" from which all others flow why is she called a harlot in the OT?


A. I'm not sure what you're referring to by that. Where is Israel (the whole nation, all 12 tribes as one, not just a section of the nation) ever called a harlot in the OT? I'm not saying it isn't or can't be, but I'd like to know what passage(s) you have in mind for this.

B. I just don't follow the implied logic. Why does it follow from Israel being called a harlot in the OT (if she is, see part A) that she must be 'the "true church" from which all others flow'? I can't see that, at all!

Why does Christ accuse her of being responsible for the death of all the prophets?


But he doesn't accuse Israel of that - he accuses Jerusalem of it! And from Galatians 4:21-27, this clearly does not refer to Jerusalem in every possible sense, but specifically "Jerusalem which now is" (i.e., pre AD70) which was in bondage with her children, as opposed to Jerusalem which is above, the mother of all the saints. Just as Abraham had two wives, there is not just one Jerusalem, there are two!

(I don't even have to go to Revelation to demonstrate this). Was not the Messiah rejected and put to death by this church?


No, he wasn't. There was a faithful remnant within Israel, who did not reject him or put him to death. So there is not a single unified "church of all Israel", which did this.

And now she is back in the land and still she refuses to acknowledge the Messiah. Christians are not allowed to preach in Israel.


You keep on trying to unify all Israel under one head, as being one indivisible thing. But it's not!

Yes, Jews are back in the land. But they vary greatly in their attitudes. Some (just a very few) have already acknowledged their Messiah - I have met and broken bread with some of those, I can vouch for them! When Christ returns, many more Jews will be destroyed for their unbelief, but the minority who then turn to the lord will be saved. Just as in Elijah's first ministry, whilst he thought the whole nation was condemned, there were 7,000 whom God had kept for himself.

So, who is the "mother of harlots" - - the one (Israel) who recieved the oracles of God, the promises, the prophets, the Messiah, the New Covenant......and rejected it all and went astray.......or, the one (Catholic Church) that was bent and crooked from the very beginning? You cannot commit apostasy if you never had the truth to start with. Only true believers can commit apostasy.


Here, you show the obvious inconsistency of your argument. If "you cannot commit apostasy if you never had the truth to start with", why ever does your tree diagram show "Roman Catholic" as one of the branches?!!!!

Edited by Mark Taunton, 12 April 2012 - 12:38 PM.


#160 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 11:55 AM


"...Things which must shorty come to pass"

Refers to those things which come to pass after the resurrection of the body of Christ.


I can't see any reason for this in the context of Revelation 1. John tells us the circumstances in which he received the revelation. Yet from what you say, it seems we should interpret "things which must shortly come to pass" as (including) "things that have already come to pass"? We know that John was not already in Patmos when Jesus was raised from the dead!


I wasn't speaking of Jesus being raised from the dead but the resurrection of the body of Christ.

No problem, same confusion also occurs from Jude 1:9 in reference to "the body of Moses".

The things which must shortly come to pass, shortly come to pass after the resurrection of the just.

Edited by Chrlsp, 12 April 2012 - 12:07 PM.


#161 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,772 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 12:35 PM

I wasn't speaking of Jesus being raised from the dead but the resurrection of the body of Christ.

No problem, same confusion also occurs from Jude 1:9 in reference to "the body of Moses".

The things which must shortly come to pass, shortly come to pass after the resurrection of the just.


OK, thanks for the clarification. But I still don't know what you mean. When did (or will) this resurrection of the just take place? Are you speaking of the resurrection at the last day, when Christ returns, or of some other resurrection of "the body of Christ" as you put it? Clearly "the resurrection" had not already happened when Paul wrote his second letter to Timothy (2 Tim 2:18). We look for a resurrection yet to happen - do you mean that none of the "things" the Revelation speaks about, and was given to show to the servants of Jesus Christ (Rev 1:1), have yet happened at all?

And why must that resurection event - whenever you date it - be used as the start time reference point for the things that Revelation tells us about, which were to come to pass? I can't see any mention of a resurrection event in Rev 1, other than Jesus' own resurection on the third day (mentioned at Rev 1:5 and Rev 1:18), which you are saying you do not mean.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 12 April 2012 - 01:02 PM.


#162 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 01:46 PM

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified
it by his angel unto his servant John: "

The book is called "The Revelation" because it is the Revelation which the Father gave to Jesus to show to his servants things which must shortly come to pass.

Therefore the purpose is: "to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass"

It is revealed by an angel, to John, by "signs".

John bare record of this, ("The Revelation", which he says is "the word of God" and "the testimony of Jesus Christ") by the "things he saw"

The things he saw were "in signs", being "in the spirit on the Lord's day ". John was given prophetic, "being in the spirit", vision.

"Behold, he cometh with clouds". clouds represent the resurrected saints.

This is where we can begin to see that the prophecy is concerned with the things that occur after the resurrection of the just. Because John sees Jesus coming with his saints (army or clouds).

Clouds represent a great mutitude which cover the land.

But, even before "the clouds", we read that John's salutation is from the "seven Spirits which are before his throne"

The seven Spirits, which represent the "clouds" or great mulitiude of resurrected saints are also referred to as "the seven lamps" and "a slain Lamb having seven horns and seven eyes sent forth unto all the earth"

This shows that what John sees while being "in the Spirit" takes place after the resurrection of the just.

Edited by Chrlsp, 12 April 2012 - 01:46 PM.


#163 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,772 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 01:52 PM

Still not 100% clear. Are you are saying that none of the things Revelation speaks of have yet come to pass - that it's all still future? The resurrection of the just has not happened yet!

#164 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:05 PM

All these things happen and are to be manifested in "the latter days", after the resurrection of "the body of Christ".

They include:

The Father sitting in Judgment delivering the little book containing the judgments written into the hand of the Lamb, and the opening of the seven seals, the sounding of the seven trumpets, the pouring out of the seven vials containing the seven last plagues and the fall of Babylon.

These things are stiil in the future.

#165 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,772 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:16 PM

OK, thanks for making that clear. I disagree, but at least I now know what you think.

#166 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:22 PM

OK, thanks for making that clear. I disagree, but at least I now know what you think.


Do you think the resurrection of the just has happened already?

Edited by Chrlsp, 12 April 2012 - 02:26 PM.


#167 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,772 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:28 PM

No.

#168 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 280 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 02:59 AM

Hello Mark,

Thank you for your support on the census matter. It is often the case that people begin an investigation with preconceived ideas (I suppose it is something we all do) and this prevents evidence being evaluated in an unbiased manner. It is obvious to me that the “census” question is not as clear cut as some would like to make it, and they deliberately place more weight on secular sources (which are often dubious) than on Biblical sources. So one source is evaluated critically (the Bible) and the other source (secular history) is treated as “gospel truth” (ha ha). Obviously, this sort of approach is methodologically flawed – both sources should be treated critically (if they really want to get to the truth).

On the matters that we were discussing - - the axiom that falsehood is a corruption of truth or perhaps, using biblical idiom……a “falling away” or “turning away” from truth. Falling away is the meaning of apostasy:

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. (Heb.6:4-6)

Here we have Christians who had received the Holy Spirit and the emblems (tasted the good word) and yet they were in danger of “falling away”.

These were Jewish Christians (Hebrews) who were “falling away” to Judaism…..they had been baptised into Christ and yet at some point they rejected him and returned to Judaism:

But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: "A dog returns to his own vomit," and, "a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire." (2 Pet. 2:22)

I grant that this is not the same as someone leaving to set up their “own religion” but it demonstrates that it is possible to begin the “race” faithfully and then “fall away”. The other case (such as in the second epistle of John) is a group within the church that started preaching “another Christ” and “another gospel”. This was a “docetic Christ” who only appeared to be human…they also started the “race” faithfully but ended up corrupting true doctrine…and finally separated themselves from the true church. These people professed to have the Spirit and maybe at one stage they did, but John urges the ecclesia to “test the Spirits” i.e., to test those who profess to have the Spirit. The litmus test was a doctrinal test about the nature of Christ (come in the flesh). Is it possible to possess the Spirit and be in error? I don’t know….but I do know that the Spirit and the flesh are at enmity and sometimes the flesh prevails. I look at the case of Peter who possessed the Holy Spirit and yet he was reprimanded by Paul because his behaviour was not in accordance with the Spirit—he had fallen under the influence of Judaists. So, it seems to me that it was possible to exercise freewill and sin even when in possession of the Spirit - - this was not the outworking of the Spirit but the outworking of the flesh (I think here of David’s appeal after his sin for God not to remove his Spirit from him). Error comes not from the Spirit but from the flesh which is opposed to the Spirit. Similarly, false religion comes from the corruption of true religion and that is because the flesh is opposed to the truth.

#169 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 280 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 03:01 AM

Israel as the Harlot


Israel was selected as God’s bride and “married” at Sinai where she took her vows. Unfortunately, she played the harlot before her honeymoon was even over. God (through Moses) made her drink the “waters of jealousy” a punishment proscribed for a woman who was suspected of committing harlotry:

Numbers 5: “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'If any man's wife goes astray and behaves unfaithfully toward him…….And the priest shall put her under oath, and say to the woman, "If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone astray to uncleanness while under your husband's authority, be free from this bitter water that brings a curse”.

Deuteronomy 9:21: “Then I took your sin, the calf which you had made, and burned it with fire and crushed it and ground it very small, until it was as fine as dust; and I threw its dust into the brook that descended from the mountain”.

The nation was made to drink “the waters of jealousy”…… NKJ Numbers 5:29 ' This is the law of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband's authority, goes astray and defiles herself”

The nation acted as a harlot throughout her history and the prophet Hosea was instructed to act out this parable in his own life:

NKJ Hosea 1:2 When the LORD began to speak by Hosea, the LORD said to Hosea: "Go, take yourself a wife of harlotry And children of harlotry, For the land has committed great harlotry By departing from the LORD."

NKJ Hosea 2:5 For their mother has played the harlot; She who conceived them has behaved shamefully. For she said, 'I will go after my lovers, Who give me my bread and my water, My wool and my linen, My oil and my drink.'

NKJ Hosea 4:12 My people ask counsel from their wooden idols, And their staff informs them. For the spirit of harlotry has caused them to stray, And they have played the harlot against their God.

NKJ Hosea 9:1 Do not rejoice, O Israel, with joy like other peoples, For you have played the harlot against your God. You have made love for hire on every threshing floor.


The city of Jerusalem, the place where God had placed his name (i.e., the Temple) had become a harlot. Ezekiel chapter 16 employs “temple language” when describing the beauty of the bride (i.e. the beauty of holiness….the crown of the high-priest etc Ex.39:30) but;

NKJ Ezekiel 16:15 "But you trusted in your own beauty, played the harlot because of your fame, and poured out your harlotry on everyone passing by who would have it”.

NKJ Ezekiel 16:30 "How degenerate is your heart!" says the Lord GOD, "seeing you do all these things, the deeds of a brazen harlot.

So I think we can make the case that Israel was the true church (true bride) who became a harlot….. This does not mean that there was not a “faithful remnant” within this community…as was demonstrated to the despairing prophet Elijah.

But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel….(Rom.9:6)

#170 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 280 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 03:03 AM

Revelation


I believe that I have posted on this before….but for reasons of clarity…


Revelation is not just about the future…..it is also about the present and the past. By that I mean that it is about John’s “present” and the “past” events that lead up to his receiving the Apocalypse.


Past…………………………………(present)……………………..future

Five are fallen…………………..one is…………………………one to come


John is told:

"Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this”. (Rev.1:19)


Things “which must shortly take place” (Rev 1:1) are obviously still future…..but not in the distant future.


Question: Why would “past” events be important to first century Christians?

Well, if you are a first Century Christian in the late 60’s you have already undergone the Herodian persecution (James killed with the sword), the Claudian famine etc and are about to face the Nero persecution………and yet the Temple is still standing!

Where is Jesus? Did he not promise to return? Did he not predict the destruction of the Temple? Does Jesus really control all the terrible events that have befallen us….how long can we endure this? What is happening??? The church is becoming corrupted and many are going back to Judaism….. The Jews have been vindicated and we are perishing………..where is Jesus in all this???


The faithful needed reassurance and encouragement as they were about to face the worst persecution yet. What greater encouragement than the knowledge that Jesus was not only aware of their past sufferings but was in active control of events leading them to their consummation – their vindication and judgement on Judaism.

Jesus had been in control from his resurrection onwards……he did not suddenly decide to intervene 66 years later. Moreover, Jesus had suffered and overcome the world and with his help they would also overcome.


So, the Seals start at the resurrection (the things which you have seen)……and what did John see? He saw the resurrected Passover Lamb:


“And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth”. (Rev.5:6)

This “Lamb” was the only one worthy to receive the scroll and open it….to guide events from his resurrection onwards. The ecclesia could rest safe in the knowledge that nothing would separate them from his love….that he had sent them the comforter…..and that he had full authority from the Father to guide events (even the terrible ones) until the time of vindication and judgement (shortly come to pass), which was the fall of Jerusalem. The “son of man” coming on judgment clouds as he told the high-priest at his trial and which he repeated in Rev 1:7.



So, Revelation is not just about the future…..certainly not the future from 96 AD onwards.

#171 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,772 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 07:50 AM

Israel as the Harlot


Israel was selected as God’s bride and “married” at Sinai where she took her vows. Unfortunately, she played the harlot before her honeymoon was even over. God (through Moses) made her drink the “waters of jealousy” a punishment proscribed for a woman who was suspected of committing harlotry:


Yes and no. Yes, God's dealing through Moses with Israel at Sinai followed the pattern of the law of jealousy - I fully agree on that. But your use of terminology is loose and inaccurate. No word for "harlot" or "harlotry" ('zanah' and cognates) appears in Numbers 5 or Exodus 32. The application of Numbers 5 is to a married woman, who may (or may not) have gone aside from her husband to another man. And the word in scripture for such activity (though even it does not come in Num 5) is not "harlotry" but "adultery". They are not synonyms.

The nation acted as a harlot throughout her history


Yes, Israelites often committed collective spiritual (and sometimes individually, literal) fornication, with the rulers/gods of other nations. But again yours is a rather generalised claim about a specific description ("the nation acted as a harlot"). Can you justify it from a scriptural statement saying exactly the same thing? I don't know of one.

and the prophet Hosea was instructed to act out this parable in his own life:


Still inaccurate, I'm afraid. When God uses the name "Israel" to Hosea, of whom is he speaking? It is not about the whole of Israel (all 12 tribes, one complete nation) but the northern kingdom of Israel only, as opposed to the kingdom of Judah. Passages such as Hosea 1:6-7 make that distinction quite clear. The 10 tribes had indeed committed harlotry from the time of Jeroboam, but in Hosea's day, Judah was still in favour with God, because of her (relative) faithfulness. So in Hosea we don't have a single nation that is a harlot. We have two parts, one committing harlotry, the other not.

The city of Jerusalem, the place where God had placed his name (i.e., the Temple) had become a harlot. Ezekiel chapter 16 employs “temple language” when describing the beauty of the bride (i.e. the beauty of holiness….the crown of the high-priest etc Ex.39:30) but;

NKJ Ezekiel 16:15 "But you trusted in your own beauty, played the harlot because of your fame, and poured out your harlotry on everyone passing by who would have it”.

NKJ Ezekiel 16:30 "How degenerate is your heart!" says the Lord GOD, "seeing you do all these things, the deeds of a brazen harlot.


Yes, "harlot" language applies to Jerusalem in Ezekiel's time. But Jerusalem is not synonymous with the whole of Israel. When that description was used, Jerusalem still existed as Judah's capital, while many Israelites were already in captivity in Babylon, along with Ezekiel himself.

So I think we can make the case that Israel was the true church (true bride) who became a harlot…..


No, we can't. You're just not taking account of the specific historical settings, or the pertinent detail in (or notably absent from) the contexts you use. Your claim seems plausible if you don't examine the matter too closely, but as I've pointed out, it's not actually accurate.

This does not mean that there was not a “faithful remnant” within this community…as was demonstrated to the despairing prophet Elijah.

But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel….(Rom.9:6)


But Paul's words prove exactly my point! You are saying "Israel", generally, acted as a harlot - you try to treat the people who physically came from Jacob as one, and stick the "harlot" label all over that particular individual. But Paul is saying there are different elements within "Israel", and they are not all the same. In particular, in this same context, the sense of "all Israel" is clearly not restricted to the natural sense, as you want it to be. From his analogy of the olive tree, leading up to Romans 11:26 where that phrase appears again, Paul makes plain that it is not specific to the natural seed of Jacob. Rather, he uses it in true application to all those who will "rule with God", spiritual Israelites from every nation, including natural Israel, but not natural Jews only.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 13 April 2012 - 08:10 AM.


#172 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,772 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 07:53 AM

So, Revelation is not just about the future…..certainly not the future from 96 AD onwards.


Please can you acknowledge what I have now said multiple times? I don't believe Revelation was given in AD96, but by AD70 at the latest!

Edited by Mark Taunton, 13 April 2012 - 07:53 AM.


#173 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 280 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 10:37 AM

Hello Mark,

The term harlot is applied (a) to Israel (b) to Jerusalem © to Judah so shouldn't be too narrowly defined,,,,,,yes the waters of jealousy apply to a married woman, but a married woman can also play the harlot (as in Hosea's case). The true bride was Israel and she was decked in finery (Ezekiel 16) but committed halotry with the surrounding nations - - but there was a faithful remnant that accepted the New Covenant and yes, gentiles were also brought into that covenant. So in the NT the term "Israel" is not restricted to "natural Israel" but the OT Israel was the original bride and the NT "Israel" has come out of her and is based on the same promises and the same hope.

P.S. Israel means......."God rules" a lesson she has still not learnt.

#174 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 280 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 10:45 AM

Biblaridion, on 13 April 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

So, Revelation is not just about the future…..certainly not the future from 96 AD onwards.

Please can you acknowledge what I have now said multiple times? I don't believe Revelation was given in AD96, but by AD70 at the latest!


Sorry Mark,

My bad.

I know you do not hold to a late date (post 70) but I write with others in mind as I suspect (hope) that others read these posts.......so sorry if I give the impression that I have not acknowledged your early date. I did something similar with Chrisp (preaching to a wider audience) and he also took it as a personal comment. I often use a case like this to open a wider platform......but I obviously need to be more careful to avoid confusion.

#175 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 280 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 11:32 AM

Hello Mark,


The term harlot and related expressions such as “play the harlot”, harlotry etc. occur approximately 70 times with reference to Israel. Of the remaining five occurrences one refers to Tyre (Isa.23: 15) and one to Nineveh (Nah.3: 4) both condemned for their violence and materialism and political aggrandisement. It is used 16 times in Ezekiel chapter 16 – a chapter that likens the nation and specifically Jerusalem to a harlot.

Although Ezekiel 16 is about Jerusalem (v.3) because the temple was there it mentions her "sisters"........Samaria and Sodom (v.46) and states that she had behaved worse than her "sisters"

NKJ Ezekiel 23:4 Their names: Oholah the elder and Oholibah her sister; They were Mine, And they bore sons and daughters. As for their names, Samaria is Oholah, and Jerusalem is Oholibah.

NKJ Ezekiel 23:11 " Now although her sister Oholibah saw this, she became more corrupt in her lust than she, and in her harlotry more corrupt than her sister's harlotry.

They were both harlots......they had both recieved the law and the promises and both practiced harlotry......but Jerusalem bore more responsibility because God placed his name there.

The cities fate was to be burnt:


NKJ Ezekiel 16:41 "They shall burn your houses with fire, and execute judgments on you in the sight of many women; and I will make you cease playing the harlot, and you shall no longer hire lovers.


Jerusalem was burnt in 586 BC and AD 70


The fate of a harlot was to be burned:

NKJ Genesis 38:24 And it came to pass, about three months after, that Judah was told, saying, "Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; furthermore she is with child by harlotry." So Judah said, "Bring her out and let her be burned!"

This will be the fate of the "harlot city" in the future:

NKJ Revelation 17:16 "And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire.

#176 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,772 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 12:36 PM

Sorry, but again there is a mix of things in your response, with the problem of loose, general but inaccurate claims still there :(. Some things you say I accept, because they are directly presented in scripture. But some of your claims, in particular that "harlot" is used so many times in scripture with respect to Israel, just don't match reality.

E.g. where Ezekiel 16 calls Jerusalem a harlot, you claim it's applied to "Israel". But it's not. For one thing, as I already observed, most Israelites were already in exile at this time. Crucially the name "Israel" does not occur at all in Ezekiel 16. Indeed the context is broader than the nation, anyway (as you observed yourself in one detail above). God speaks of Jerusalem as being a member of a Canaanite family, with Hittite and Amorite parents. So this context is clearly not framed by the 12 tribes and the promises to the fathers (at the root of your tree), but is setting Jerusalem in a quite distinct ethnic structure, related to the state of the city under its former occupants, to which it is returning, spiritually. Moreover, God says Jerusalem's sisters in harlotry are Samaria and Sodom. But while the city Samaria became the capital of the northern kingdom, Sodom was never an Israelite city at all. So your claims that this is a use of "harlot" language about "Israel" simply don't match the facts of the text.

I'm sorry, but it's unclear how we can make progress until we can agree about this, and be consistent and accurate in how we characterise what scripture actually says. I've pointed out several instances of this sort of looseness so far, but you've not really addressed them, imo. Please can you try to do so?

Edited by Mark Taunton, 13 April 2012 - 12:40 PM.


#177 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 02:21 AM

Jerusalem and her people are spiritually called Amorites and Hitites because they adopt their idolatries.

Jerusalem is also, and for the same reason, spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, and Babylon.

Isa. 1:10

Rev. 11:8

Jer. 51:7 Rev 18:3

Edited by Chrlsp, 14 April 2012 - 02:21 AM.


#178 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 280 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 10:42 AM

Hello Mark,

Ezekiel 23 mentions both Jerusalem and Samaria as harlots........they are both called lewd women (v.44) and as the capital cities of the North and South they represent the whole nation, moreover it states that they committed harlotry in Egypt....in their youth....demonstrating that these two cities represent the twelve tribes that came out of Egypt:


Ezekiel 23:2-4 "Son of man, there were two women, The daughters of one mother. They committed harlotry in Egypt, They committed harlotry in their youth; Their breasts were there embraced, Their virgin bosom was there pressed. Their names: Oholah the elder and Oholibah her sister; They were Mine, And they bore sons and daughters. As for their names, Samaria is Oholah, and Jerusalem is Oholibah".


Jerusalem always held particular significance ........in the early monarchy the city represented the whole nation....... because the king resided there and God placed his name there.


They were the daughters of one mother (i.e. like Rachel and Leah the matriarchs of Israel) .....these two "daughters" represent the whole nation.

So there are enough texts that demonstrate that the nation was a harlot........from her youth...........with two harlot cities......but with particular emphasis on the harlotry of Jerusalem.

I honestly don't see what the problem is?

#179 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 11:32 AM

"Behold, therefore I will gather all thy lovers, with whom thou hast taken pleasure, and all them that thou hast loved, with all them that thou hast hated; I will even gather them round about against thee, and will discover thy nakedness unto them, that they may see all thy nakedness." Eze 16:37

And who are her lovers?

Psalm 83

"And I will judge thee, as women that break wedlock and shed blood are judged; and I will give thee blood in fury and jealousy." v 38

Hosea 2

"Say ye unto your brethren, Ammi (my people); and to your sisters, Ruhamah (having obtained mercy).
Plead with your mother, plead: for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts;
Lest I strip her naked, and set her as in the day that she was born, and make her as a wilderness, and set her like a dry land, and slay her with thirst."

Edited by Chrlsp, 14 April 2012 - 11:36 AM.


#180 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,772 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 02:13 PM

Hello Biblaridion,

Thanks for your further post. I do have something of an issue with how this discussion is progressing, however. If at all possible, please can we deal with one context at a time?

My earlier criticisms (in my previous post to this one) focused on your treatment of Ezekiel 16, which was the first passage referenced in an earlier post of yours. But your latest posting doesn't mention Ezekiel 16 or deal with any of my specific criticisms at all. Agreed, Ezekiel 23 also talks about harlotry, but it's a quite separate passage; it doesn't just repeat the details of Ezekiel 16, but says other things, in different ways.

So before getting on to Ezekiel 23, please can you first respond to the specific points I raised about Ezekiel 16? (There are more things I could add, but let's stick with what I already said.)
For ease of reference, here is the paragraph again:

Where Ezekiel 16 calls Jerusalem a harlot, you claim it's applied to "Israel". But it's not. For one thing, as I already observed, most Israelites were already in exile at this time. Crucially the name "Israel" does not occur at all in Ezekiel 16. Indeed the context is broader than the nation, anyway (as you observed yourself in one detail above). God speaks of Jerusalem as being a member of a Canaanite family, with Hittite and Amorite parents. So this context is clearly not framed by the 12 tribes and the promises to the fathers (at the root of your tree), but is setting Jerusalem in a quite distinct ethnic structure, related to the state of the city under its former occupants, to which it is returning, spiritually. Moreover, God says Jerusalem's sisters in harlotry are Samaria and Sodom. But while the city Samaria became the capital of the northern kingdom, Sodom was never an Israelite city at all. So your claims that this is a use of "harlot" language about "Israel" simply don't match the facts of the text.


Looking forward to your further comments,
Mark.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 14 April 2012 - 02:20 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users