User Tag List

View Poll Results: Who is implicitly and explicitly leading the Battle Royale?

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • PilgrimAgain

    5 38.46%
  • 1013

    8 61.54%
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678
Results 106 to 114 of 114

Thread: BATTLE TALK ~ Battle Royale VI - PilgrimAgain vs. 1013

  1. #106
    Post Modern Fundamentalist 1013's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Toledo Ohio/Huntington Indiana
    Posts
    270
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    199
    "Abraham BELIEVED GOD,and it was counted to him for righteousness"(Ro.4:3).

    Those who BELIEVE GOD,no matter in what form the revelation comes,are justified before God.
    neato. that's so obvious but I've never made this connection before.

  2. #107
    Rookie
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Currently in Canada
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Hey Folks,

    I have no idea whether or not anybody is even still perusing this forum, but I noticed that quite a few posts within it dealt with the ostensible significance of "nations" with reference to this topic. Something that I didn't notice being mentioned (but may have simply missed since, to be honest, I merely skimmed each posted message) was how, in Luke's Gospel, Jesus sends out a total of seventy disciples "two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come." Luke specifically informs his audience that "the Lord appointed" them and "sent them on ahead of him" (10.1). A little later in the text (v. 17, to be exact) we're told that, "The seventy returned with joy," apparently due to their success and accomplishments (it should be noted that in the classical world those "appointed" to such a task were not to return to the one who had commissioned them until their respective tasks had in fact been successfully accomplished).
    Now, many of you may be asking yourselves at around this point, "What the heck does any of this have to do with either the subject at hand or the topic of 'nations'?" I don't blame you if you were, so here I'll draw the connection. First of all, why are we told that Jesus commissioned a total of seventy disciples to go on ahead of him to these "towns and places" in which he was soon to make his presence known? It can only be a deliberate, even if symbolic, reference to the fact that the ancient Israelites believed that all--as in every single one--of the total Gentile nations of the world equalled exactly seventy (cf. e.g., the 'Table of Nations' in Genesis 10). Thus was Jesus (through Luke) symbolically indicating via his seventy apostles (or "sent ones") of his definite intentions toward including all the nations within his redemptive and restorative plans. In other words, it would appear that everyone is included!

  3. #108
    Pilgrimagain
    Guest
    But I think the most you can say is that they were included in the proclamation of the Gospel. Of course the message is for everyone, but even Jesus in his instructions to the 70 noted that some would not hear or respond favorably to the message and that in those cases we should simply shake the dust from our sandles and move on.

    Pilgrim

  4. #109
    Rookie
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Currently in Canada
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally posted by Pilgrimagain
    But I think the most you can say is that they were included in the proclamation of the Gospel. Of course the message is for everyone, but even Jesus in his instructions to the 70 noted that some would not hear or respond favorably to the message and that in those cases we should simply shake the dust from our sandles and move on.

    Pilgrim
    Sorry for the delay in responding to you (I had made an earlier attempt, only to be unceremoniously disconnected from the internet).
    You raise a good point Pilgrim. But noteworthy is the fact that your comments concerning this text betrays a very individualistic perspective. This is of course very natural given our time and culture. But notice that the passage itself has Jesus speak in terms of the reactions of whole cities, not of mere individuals. This is also very much in keeping with the socio-cultural context of first-century Palestine (or indeed of virtually all times and cultures until relatively recently). Now given that, do we seriously suppose that "the God of all the earth" will condemn a whole city just because a few certain elders within that community happened not to recognize Jesus as God's one true Messiah? Or remember, if my hermeneutics are correct, and the reference to 'the seventy' really is to be equated with the ancient Jewish belief that all the Gentile nations of the world totalled seventy, then this reference is actually symbolic of whole NATIONS! Is God going to damn a whole ethnic group simply because their leaders aren't followers of Christ?
    No, rather I think the reference to 'the seventy', coupled with talk of rejection, bears yet another scriptural echo we're meant to take into account. To begin with, some of the ancient manuscripts of Luke's Gospel render there as being not seventy but seventy-two disciples commissioned by Jesus here. As can be expected, there has been plenty of discussion as to which is ultimately the more accurate figure. Next, whichever the case may be, as I've alluded in both posts now, just what is the symbolic significance of these numerals, if any?
    A possible solution to both issues may reside in the possibility that Luke is seeing Jesus in light of Moses (specifically as 'the New Moses'; cf. Dale C. Allison's monograph bearing that title), who, you may recall, on one occasion chose seventy elders of Israel (in my opinion with the same 'catholic' significance being intended), who were given a share in God's Spirit, and were thereby equipped to help him lead the people of Israel (Numbers 11.16, 25). On that occasion, not unlike what is seen in Luke 9.49-50, two others who were not part of the original seventy also received the Spirit of God, to the alarm of some. The underlying point here being that Jesus is sending out emmissaries to help in leading the new Exodus (cf. the recent and numerous scholarly studies now being conducted concerning the many links between the depiction(s) of Jesus in the Gospels and the recurring concept of the 'New Exodus' within the prophetic writings of the OT (but can be particularly found in the writings of deutero-Isaiah).
    In the original Exodus the Israelites rebelled, grumbled and didn't want to go the way God was leading, in spite of all the powerful displays of Yahweh's care and character. In Jesus' work, too, many if not most of Jesus' contemporaries failed to recognize the truth of just who Jesus is and what he is ultimately up to, again despite all his healings and the power and shrewdness of his teachings.
    However, just as Yahweh did not ultimately reject Israel--else he would not be just, since he would have failed to have been faithful to his covenant promises to Israel--so also will he not ultimately reject these wayward nations. Note, after all, that we're told that the seventy returned to Jesus rejoicing (cf. v. 17). Just as Jesus prayed for his executioners (and let's remember that in the end we all bear responsibility for Christ's execution), "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Lk 23.34), isn't it perfectly in keeping with Jesus' own character that he would also be interceding for all of us in the exact same way? I think it can be safely said that anybody who rejects Jesus as God's Messiah, or who even otherwise sins, doesn't really know what they're doing, and is thereby graciously forgiven.

  5. #110
    Pilgrimagain
    Guest
    Why is it hard to imagine od judging a whole city. This is the same God who had all the egyptian fist born killed for the sins of the fathers. This is the same God who destroyed Sodom.

    Ultimately I find myself seeing things more from your perspective but I can see very cogent arguments going the other way as well.

  6. #111
    Rookie
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Currently in Canada
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally posted by Pilgrimagain
    Why is it hard to imagine od judging a whole city. This is the same God who had all the egyptian fist born killed for the sins of the fathers. This is the same God who destroyed Sodom.

    Ultimately I find myself seeing things more from your perspective but I can see very cogent arguments going the other way as well.
    DCY: Oh, I know there are viable arguments for the other side as well. I probably used quite a few of them myself at one time or another. As far as I'm concerned though, it eventually all came down to who I perceived God to be; when it comes right down to it, what is his essential character? Of course the Bible reveals that God is gracious, merciful, patient and full of loving-kindness, etc. etc. But of course the Bible also reveals that God's patience doesn't last forever. At times, God can be frustrated and wrathful, not only angry but downright vindictive. But what is he more of? Based on my own study of Scripture, coupled with how I perceived God to be via the time I spent in prayer, speaking with him, I came to see God as being more loving and gracious than anything else. Which brings me to your initial response quoted above.
    Whereas the scriptural witness has it that God indeed "had all the Egyptian firstborn killed," However, the Bible is completely silent as to what their final desinies were. That they lost their earthly existences is biblically true and tragic. But I don't see there as being any indication as to whehter or not they suffered 'eternal' condemnation.

  7. #112
    Pilgrimagain
    Guest
    INdeed, as infants, it is hardly likely that the did.

  8. #113
    Rookie
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Currently in Canada
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally posted by Pilgrimagain
    INdeed, as infants, it is hardly likely that the did.
    DCY: Exactly. But this points toward a marked inconsistency in the position of those who so strictly insist that it is only the people who have heard, adequately understood, and then have accepted the message of Jesus Christ who will in turn be found acceptable by God (and please note, I'm not asserting by this that you Pilgrim are among those who make such a stipulation; I have no idea whether you are or not). They will often want to allow enough exceptions to this rule--infants, the mentally incompetent, (less often) those who had no chance of ever hearing the gospel, (less often yet) those who have heard the gospel message but where it was presented so inadequately or poorly that it became a message well-worth rejecting--that the stricture becomes virtually meaningless.

  9. #114
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Battle Royale VI - PilgrimAgain vs. 1013



    ..........................................

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us