Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Get On the Road To Emmaus With Cleopas And His Friend Again

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ECT: Get On the Road To Emmaus With Cleopas And His Friend Again

    Get On the Road Again - To Emmaus With Cleopas and His Buddy

    In Luke 24: 21-31-32 there is an awakening, a seeing, an insight, which is about the change from kata sarka (I Corinthians 10: 18), after the flesh, to the kata pneumatikos (I Peter 2: 5), after the Spirit, or being spiritually a member of the oikos pneumatikos, spiritual house. There is in Luke 24: 31-32 a great insight, a change, a translation or a transformation from that which is physical and believing that Christ only died on the Cross to redeem the nation of Israel (Luke 24: 21) politically and physically from the Roman rule, to seeing and believing in Christ as the savior of all who have faith in him. In that insight and beginning of faith there is that start of the fulfillment of the hope of glory (Colossians 1: 27), which is Christ in you.

    Notice in Luke 24: 13-32 that verse 21 shows the state of belief of the two on the Road to Emmous after the Crucifixion - that Christ's mission was only to redeem the nation of Israel physically from Rome. But then in verses 25-27 Christ told them they were fools and slow of heart and expounded to them the Scriptures concerning himself.

    Finally, in verses 31-32 their eyes were opened and they knew him, and they said "...one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?"

    "And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
    14. And they talked together of all these things which had happened.
    15. And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
    16. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.
    17. And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?
    18. And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass therein these days?
    19. And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
    20. And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.
    21. But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
    22. Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre;
    23. And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.
    24. And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.
    25. Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
    26. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
    27. And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
    28. And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.
    29. But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.
    30. And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
    31. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
    32. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" Luke 24: 13-32
    Last edited by northwye; September 21, 2017, 07:51 AM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by northwye View Post
    There is in Luke 24: 31-32 a great insight, a change, a translation or a transformation from that which is physical and believing that Christ only died on the Cross to redeem the nation of Israel (Luke 24: 21) politically and physically from the Roman rule, to seeing and believing in Christ as the savior of all who have faith in him.
    Neither the word nor the concept of 'only' is found in the text.
    The point was that the two did not know that Christ had been resurrected.
    They believed GOD thru the prophets that Messiah would indeed redeem Israel.
    They were disappointed that He was dead and didn't fulfill the prophecy.
    The text does not say that they were mistaken that their Messiah would redeem Israel.
    Christ's revelation to Paul of 'Christ in you' is nowhere to be found or even hinted at in the text.
    The scriptures which He opened their understanding to were Moses and the prophets of Israel which clearly state that Messiah would redeem Israel.
    Zacharias, father of John the Baptist, spoke by the Holy Spirit that Jesus the Messiah would deliver Israel from her enemies and fulfill the prophets.
    One has no justification to take the future revelations given to Paul by the ascended Christ and force them back into the immediate post-resurrection events.
    Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD[YHVH], that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
    Jer 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he[the Branch] shall be called, THE LORD[YHVH] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

    Comment


    • #3
      Well done, brother steko. Both north and IP, wickedly, have a habit of leaving out important details in their attempt to delude TOL.
      Originally posted by Interplanner
      They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
      Originally posted by Interplanner
      You're too literal to get it.
      Originally posted by Interplanner
      The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
        Well done, brother steko. Both north and IP, wickedly, have a habit of leaving out important details in their attempt to delude TOL.
        Good post from steko.

        As for the rest of your post, STP - they are merely posting their "reading into" of those things - their (mis) understanding...

        In their belief they are doing good.

        Just as your hybrid as "MAD" is the result of your "reading into" a thing.

        You and yours (within your Acts 9/Acts 28 hybrid) are often better at the much easier to sort out Prophetic aspect, than you are at The Mystery.

        northwye, IP, et al, are merely being as stubborn in their (mis) understandings as you and yours ever are, in yours.

        Doesn't mean you and yours are up to no good, anymore than their insisting on their (mis) understandings means they are

        Whoops - there comes your pal, heir, with one more repeat of her name calling posts to me in private

        Nevertheless, Romans 5:8

        Comment


        • #5
          I thought the road to Emmaus story was about the Eucharist.
          That's what Father Trugilio told me.
          Originally posted by Interplanner
          They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
          Originally posted by Interplanner
          You're too literal to get it.
          Originally posted by Interplanner
          The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
            I thought the road to Emmaus story was about the Eucharist.
            That's what Father Trugilio told me.
            IP may have confused all that with the Willy Nelson song

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
              Well done, brother steko.
              He's so handy to have around.

              We don't tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters exist.
              They already know monsters exist.
              We tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters can be killed.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Danoh View Post


                Whoops - there comes your pal, heir, with one more repeat of her name calling posts to me in private
                Leave Heir alone, you pig in sheep's clothing. Putting a scripture verse after this nonsense doesn't clean it up one bit.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by steko View Post
                  Neither the word nor the concept of 'only' is found in the text.
                  The point was that the two did not know that Christ had been resurrected.
                  They believed GOD thru the prophets that Messiah would indeed redeem Israel.
                  They were disappointed that He was dead and didn't fulfill the prophecy.
                  The text does not say that they were mistaken that their Messiah would redeem Israel.
                  Christ's revelation to Paul of 'Christ in you' is nowhere to be found or even hinted at in the text.
                  The scriptures which He opened their understanding to were Moses and the prophets of Israel which clearly state that Messiah would redeem Israel.
                  Zacharias, father of John the Baptist, spoke by the Holy Spirit that Jesus the Messiah would deliver Israel from her enemies and fulfill the prophets.
                  One has no justification to take the future revelations given to Paul by the ascended Christ and force them back into the immediate post-resurrection events.




                  Here are some of the problems with what Steko is saying.

                  1, The 'only (the cross)' problem is not solved as he thinks. It really is the only thing that matters, however, the resurrection was God's proof that his sacrifice was sufficient, and then that message about his suffering was to be preached to all nations. So all were to be preached, however, they are far short of a restoration of the land of Israel expected.

                  Once again, you must realize that we can do nothing to remove this from the 1st century. Revolts were started during the Tiberius census, and they had been prophesied to sweep the land like a flood in Dan 8-9. The answer of the Christian message to such revolts was brilliant: the message of the Christians did not need such a restoration. It could function under Roman admin just fine. The Israel that believed that Gospel could do just fine, and not fight Rome.

                  Luke is really by Paul and transcribed from Paul and about whether Paul was a threat to Rome. The 'redeeming of Israel' is in the text specifically to show Rome that the Christian movement was NOT a threat. Luke, in ch 22 has an extensive description of the kingdom that shows it is not anything that would pose a threat. The 'entry' to the city did not trigger the Antonia Tower guard that was charged with temple security. Nor did the cleansing of the temple. And Jesus even blasted the terrorists while doing that cleansing. So Rome knew exactly where he was, where he stood.

                  There is nothing about the land restoration in this short list of what Christ's purpose was and what was to be preached.

                  D'ists can always pull out their Bibles with the green lights that say 'X000 years in the future' but those are not in the text.

                  To get safety from enemies IN THIS SETTING meant to be able to get away from the zealots. The believers were told to leave when the leader of the rebellion was seen using the temple. But between Mark 13 and Lk 21, it was moved up to: when you see the city surrounded (by Rome). At least I used to think it was Rome in 68 until I learned that about 5 years earlier Festus tried to protect the city with an additional set of walls, but died during the project and it was dropped.

                  2, The point.
                  They did know he was raised. They did not know what the resurrection meant. That is more to the point about being dismayed that he did not redeem Israel. They couldn't connect the two. They knew angels had said he was alive. But understanding that the resurrection was his enthronement? Void. They didn't get it. After the Spirit comes and works, we see that they are preaching:
                  Christ's enthronement in the resurrection, Acts 2
                  the completion of promises to the fathers in it, Acts 13,
                  the declaration of Christ as Son of God with power in Rom 1.

                  3, Disappointment that he was another dead zealot.
                  2000 were crucified the same year as Christ. For rebellion. but the disappointment would be IF that is what he was supposed to do. Are you getting closer? He wasn't going to do that . "Redemption" didn't mean what they thought. Nor kingdom. Nor power. Nor thrones. It never would. But they sure kept asking! Even in Acts 1, they asked again.

                  The description of the kingdom in the Lk passages of 17:20, 18:29, 22:16, 26, 27, 29, 37, are not a problem to Rome. They are spiritual maturity. "You are not to be like" the kingdoms of earth, is not much encouragement to operate like the zealots and Judaizers.

                  their mistake, ALL THROUGH THE GOSPELS, is to think the kingdom was the same old same old. "Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, says the Lord." Actually, power is OK if it is the power of the Spirit, Acts 1, 2.

                  4, the content of the OT
                  Here, Steko, you are at your worst. Look closely at what it says, in Lk 24, in the places where the apostles summarize what was expressed, in Acts 26, where Paul says he would not speak beyond that same list (suffering, resurrection, proclamation to the nations), when preaching from the prophets. V23 is remarkable on this, because he says there is NOTHING else there. You think there is. D'ism thinks there is. The club thinks there is. Ryrie does. Chafer does. But Paul says there is nothing else but those things.

                  I believe this is why there is no clear reference to the land of Israel's restoration in X000 in the NT. I have listed the passages 1000x about the 2nd coming, in their plain language (no symbols) and there is nothing. The longest and most detailed treatment would be 2 Peter 3. There are about 8 others.
                  All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
                    Leave Heir alone, you pig in sheep's clothing. Putting a scripture verse after this nonsense doesn't clean it up one bit.
                    Yo, gospel of grace-less grace, GD - she has been posting private, negative name callings to me

                    I mentioned that before and with a chuckle then too, because a chuckle is what the passage I have been citing at the end of many of my posts, regardless of subject or person...allows.

                    Grace...the victory that overcomes the world...

                    You would know this if you would just set your obvious need for pettiness aside for a moment to look for it's solving for in Romans 5:8

                    But you know what?

                    Whether you do or not, I already have.

                    So, Romans 5:8 towards you once more - and not only nevertheless, but regardless of what additionally fleshly minded pettiness you may or may not choose to take this reply to you from.

                    Bring it on, I'll glory in it - "light affliction" to the glory of the Son!

                    Because...Romans 5:8.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Danoh View Post
                      Yo, gospel of grace-less grace, GD - she has been posting private, negative name callings to me

                      I mentioned that before and with a chuckle then too, because a chuckle is what the passage I have been citing at the end of many of my posts, regardless of subject or person...allows.

                      Grace...the victory that overcomes the world...

                      You would know this if you would just set your obvious need for pettiness aside for a moment to look for it's solving for in Romans 5:8

                      But you know what?

                      Whether you do or not, I already have.

                      So, Romans 5:8 towards you once more - and not only nevertheless, but regardless of what additionally fleshly minded pettiness you may or may not choose to take this reply to you from.

                      Bring it on, I'll glory in it - "light affliction" to the glory of the Son!

                      Because...Romans 5:8.

                      Hypocrite. You call me petty when it's you making the public digs at Heir. danny boy

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
                        Hypocrite. You call me petty when it's you making the public digs at Heir. danny boy
                        No fool woman, I was chuckling about it to her pal, STP.

                        Because he knows how she feels about me.

                        I find her behavior towards me, something to chuckle about.

                        As I do yours towards me.

                        Then again, you could just mind your own business

                        Because Romans 5:8.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Interplanner View Post
                          Here are some of the problems with what Steko is saying.

                          1, The 'only (the cross)' problem is not solved as he thinks. It really is the only thing that matters, however, the resurrection was God's proof that his sacrifice was sufficient, and then that message about his suffering was to be preached to all nations. So all were to be preached, however, they are far short of a restoration of the land of Israel expected.

                          Once again, you must realize that we can do nothing to remove this from the 1st century. Revolts were started during the Tiberius census, and they had been prophesied to sweep the land like a flood in Dan 8-9. The answer of the Christian message to such revolts was brilliant: the message of the Christians did not need such a restoration. It could function under Roman admin just fine. The Israel that believed that Gospel could do just fine, and not fight Rome.

                          Luke is really by Paul and transcribed from Paul and about whether Paul was a threat to Rome. The 'redeeming of Israel' is in the text specifically to show Rome that the Christian movement was NOT a threat. Luke, in ch 22 has an extensive description of the kingdom that shows it is not anything that would pose a threat. The 'entry' to the city did not trigger the Antonia Tower guard that was charged with temple security. Nor did the cleansing of the temple. And Jesus even blasted the terrorists while doing that cleansing. So Rome knew exactly where he was, where he stood.

                          There is nothing about the land restoration in this short list of what Christ's purpose was and what was to be preached.

                          D'ists can always pull out their Bibles with the green lights that say 'X000 years in the future' but those are not in the text.

                          To get safety from enemies IN THIS SETTING meant to be able to get away from the zealots. The believers were told to leave when the leader of the rebellion was seen using the temple. But between Mark 13 and Lk 21, it was moved up to: when you see the city surrounded (by Rome). At least I used to think it was Rome in 68 until I learned that about 5 years earlier Festus tried to protect the city with an additional set of walls, but died during the project and it was dropped.

                          2, The point.
                          They did know he was raised. They did not know what the resurrection meant. That is more to the point about being dismayed that he did not redeem Israel. They couldn't connect the two. They knew angels had said he was alive. But understanding that the resurrection was his enthronement? Void. They didn't get it. After the Spirit comes and works, we see that they are preaching:
                          Christ's enthronement in the resurrection, Acts 2
                          the completion of promises to the fathers in it, Acts 13,
                          the declaration of Christ as Son of God with power in Rom 1.

                          3, Disappointment that he was another dead zealot.
                          2000 were crucified the same year as Christ. For rebellion. but the disappointment would be IF that is what he was supposed to do. Are you getting closer? He wasn't going to do that . "Redemption" didn't mean what they thought. Nor kingdom. Nor power. Nor thrones. It never would. But they sure kept asking! Even in Acts 1, they asked again.

                          The description of the kingdom in the Lk passages of 17:20, 18:29, 22:16, 26, 27, 29, 37, are not a problem to Rome. They are spiritual maturity. "You are not to be like" the kingdoms of earth, is not much encouragement to operate like the zealots and Judaizers.

                          their mistake, ALL THROUGH THE GOSPELS, is to think the kingdom was the same old same old. "Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, says the Lord." Actually, power is OK if it is the power of the Spirit, Acts 1, 2.

                          4, the content of the OT
                          Here, Steko, you are at your worst. Look closely at what it says, in Lk 24, in the places where the apostles summarize what was expressed, in Acts 26, where Paul says he would not speak beyond that same list (suffering, resurrection, proclamation to the nations), when preaching from the prophets. V23 is remarkable on this, because he says there is NOTHING else there. You think there is. D'ism thinks there is. The club thinks there is. Ryrie does. Chafer does. But Paul says there is nothing else but those things.

                          I believe this is why there is no clear reference to the land of Israel's restoration in X000 in the NT. I have listed the passages 1000x about the 2nd coming, in their plain language (no symbols) and there is nothing. The longest and most detailed treatment would be 2 Peter 3. There are about 8 others.
                          Good grief!
                          Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD[YHVH], that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
                          Jer 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he[the Branch] shall be called, THE LORD[YHVH] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by steko View Post
                            Good grief!
                            Yep - he has simply been too far gone, far too long...down his particular rabbit hole.

                            To Romans 5:8, then, IP.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              "The scriptures which He opened their understanding to were Moses and the prophets of Israel which clearly state that Messiah would redeem Israel.
                              Zacharias, father of John the Baptist, spoke by the Holy Spirit that Jesus the Messiah would deliver Israel from her enemies and fulfill the prophets.
                              One has no justification to take the future revelations given to Paul by the ascended Christ and force them back into the immediate post-resurrection events."

                              What did redeeming Israel mean to the Jews and also to the Jewish followers of Jesus at this time?

                              In acts 1: 6 the followers of Jesus asked this of Christ; "When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"

                              The Jews were expecting Christ to create a physical kingdom. But - "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:" Luke 17: 20

                              "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17: 21

                              The kingdom of God which Christ came to create was a spiritual one.

                              The Jews at that time already thought that Christ would restore the physical kingdom to Israel. So in Acts 24 27 when Christ expounded to the two on the Road to Emmaus all the scriptures concerning himself, then the two had their eyes opened and they knew him as Christ and their hearts burned within them because of that experience - Luke 24: 31-32. Christ opened their eyes to something bigger than the restoration of the physical kingdom to Israel. He opened their eyes to see the kingdom as he described it in Luke 17: 20-21, a spiritual kingdom.

                              The kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost” Romans 14:17.

                              When Christ was before Pilate. Christ said to him: “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.” John 18: 36

                              By echoing the First Century Jewish expectation that Christ was to restore the physical kingdom to Israel, the dispensationalist theology diminishes the spirituality of the kingdom Christ did create and of his rule over that kingdom now.

                              Dispensationalism implies that Christ must be on earth in order to rule over his kingdom, which dispensationalists do not understand to be a spiritual kingdom.

                              Those with Christ in them are now spiritually ruling with him. Paul says in Ephesians 2:6: He “hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus” See: Romans. 6:5, 8:17; Colossians. 2:13, 3:1–3; Revelation. 20:4.

                              Dispensationalism diminishes that which is spiritual and endorses that which is physical. Dispensationalists seem to believe that they can be saved while remaining in the spiritual condition of the natural man, who does not receive the things of the Spirit of God.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X