Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The City No Longer Deserted, Is 62

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ECT: The City No Longer Deserted, Is 62

    This section was written during the Babylonian captivity, to give hope to believers who were in Israel for their future. When they did get back to Israel and somewhat of a settled life, there were two disparate developments. One, that it was ridiculously inferior to what they had in David's time, and then when the 1st century came there was the excessive rebuilding of a temple fraught with contradiction by the Herod family.

    Neither of which are meant by Isaiah's 'city no longer deserted.' The NT is quite clear that there is already a city above, an indestructible kingdom, and it interacts with it. Those resurrected in Mt 27 were there afterward. Paul calls it our mother and it provides hope now, thought it is hanging above.

    It is unthinkable that there would be another episode of a Jerusalem when the prophet said the one coming would not be called desolate (and the capitol in Judea was called desolated), when the NT is already enjoying the benefit of the mother city.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  • #2
    Originally posted by Interplanner View Post
    This section was written during the Babylonian captivity, to give hope to believers who were in Israel for their future. When they did get back to Israel and somewhat of a settled life, there were two disparate developments. One, that it was ridiculously inferior to what they had in David's time, and then when the 1st century came there was the excessive rebuilding of a temple fraught with contradiction by the Herod family.

    Neither of which are meant by Isaiah's 'city no longer deserted.' The NT is quite clear that there is already a city above, an indestructible kingdom, and it interacts with it. Those resurrected in Mt 27 were there afterward. Paul calls it our mother and it provides hope now, thought it is hanging above.

    It is unthinkable that there would be another episode of a Jerusalem when the prophet said the one coming would not be called desolate (and the capitol in Judea was called desolated), when the NT is already enjoying the benefit of the mother city.
    Well said. Now look here and note the context as quoted in the N/T:

    Isaiah 40:1-3 KJV
    1 Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
    2 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins.
    3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.


    By the context this is the commencement of the ministry of John, (the authors of the N/T including Paul do not "cherry pick" one liners and rip them out of context like the modern mainstream likes to do).

    Comment


    • #3
      Isaiah 62
      62:7 And give him no rest, till he establish, and till he make Jerusalem a praise in the earth.
      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
        Isaiah 62
        62:7 And give him no rest, till he establish, and till he make Jerusalem a praise in the earth.
        That is accomplished walking in the Testimony of Messiah, which does not concern the whole natural and physical globe of "the earth" as the natural mind sees "planet earth", (the globe), because the kingdom of Messiah is not of this world. He is from above, we start out as from below: it is we therefore who must change. Every person has his or her own little portions of earth, land, and soil, with his or her temple, (both the adamah-soil of the heart and the eretz-outer bounds or "badlands" of the flesh). In all my earth-land-soil Jerusalem of above is a praise because she is my mother-covenant, (Gal 4:24,25,26,27). So if you are implying that the passage you quoted has not yet been accomplished just because right now Jerusalem of below is not yet a praise in the earth; then your understandings of both "the earth" and "Jerusalem" are what is skewed, (Jerusalem of below as opposed to Jerusalem of above). In other words you might only see the passage you quoted as yet unfulfilled because it simply is not yet fulfilled in your own earth-land-soil. The first man Adam was taken from dust of the adamah-soil: man is dust, earth, soil, and land, from the beginning, and therefore Paul likewise teaches us to put to death or mortify our members which are upon the earth or land, (your own unruly "members" of your own household-house-body-temple: just as Messiah teaches in so much of his Testimony in the Gospel accounts).

        Moreover one cannot fully understand the writings of Paul without seeing these things because he goes up to Jerusalem by revelation many times, (and that does not mean physically going up to Jerusalem of below).

        Comment


        • #5
          Oh...
          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
            Genesis 3:19

            Comment


            • #7
              Daqq wrote:
              he goes up to Jerusalem by revelation many times,

              slow down partner, that is meant in the ordinary sense and he says so and he says who he talked to. Don't get carried away.
              All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by daqq View Post
                Well said. Now look here and note the context as quoted in the N/T:

                Isaiah 40:1-3 KJV
                1 Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
                2 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins.
                3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.


                By the context this is the commencement of the ministry of John, (the authors of the N/T including Paul do not "cherry pick" one liners and rip them out of context like the modern mainstream likes to do).





                Right. John should never have used those words, if futurism means anything. Someone else should have done so 'in the millenium'.

                There is not a trace or hint of implication that ch 62 is to be busted up in to scattered fragments here and there, resembling how a txt string reaches its final destination. It is simply the next thing expected and was not going to be about Jerusalem as they knew it, but about the other, the one coming 'in Christ.'

                btw, everyone is a % 'already fulfilled' and a % 'future fulfilled.' The expected events of Christ were future to the prophet who gave them, but sometimes right beside other items that were a bit later (like the destruction of Jerusalem) or (as we now know) quite a bit later.
                All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Interplanner View Post
                  Daqq wrote:
                  he goes up to Jerusalem by revelation many times,

                  slow down partner, that is meant in the ordinary sense and he says so and he says who he talked to. Don't get carried away.
                  That is just your physical minded opinion without anything to back it up. I have scripture where Daniel goes up to Jerusalem on his knees, with his windows open toward Jerusalem, three times daily, FROM BABYLON.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by daqq View Post
                    That is just your physical minded opinion without anything to back it up. I have scripture where Daniel goes up to Jerusalem on his knees, with his windows open toward Jerusalem, three times daily, FROM BABYLON.




                    Oh, so James and others were in heaven when Paul climbed the 4000 feet from Syria to Judea? Or rather, heaven was at 4000 feet in Judea at that time?

                    What is a physical minded opinion in an essay where the Jerusalem of Is 62 is said not to be the 4000 ft elevation city in 1st century Judea?

                    Stay in the ordinary sense as much as possible. Due to what happened to the land in the 1st century, and the specific warnings about it happening by Jesus 30+ years earlier, I must leave the ordinary sense when Isaiah says that when they return from exile it will be glorious and permanent. He meant the NHNE which was originally expected right after the DoJ.
                    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Sorry about a shift here, the 2P2Ps keep referring to Christ not sitting on the father's throne in Hebrews, but rather a 2nd program throne, or maybe 3rd, to keep it distinct again from one in Jerusalem. But in Rev 3:21 we have this self-description that he sat down with his Father on his throne. So that would be the one David foresaw in Acts 2:30-31, because there is no other 'overcoming and sitting down' on a throne at another time.
                      All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Interplanner View Post
                        Oh, so James and others were in heaven when Paul climbed the 4000 feet from Syria to Judea? Or rather, heaven was at 4000 feet in Judea at that time?

                        What is a physical minded opinion in an essay where the Jerusalem of Is 62 is said not to be the 4000 ft elevation city in 1st century Judea?

                        Stay in the ordinary sense as much as possible. Due to what happened to the land in the 1st century, and the specific warnings about it happening by Jesus 30+ years earlier, I must leave the ordinary sense when Isaiah says that when they return from exile it will be glorious and permanent. He meant the NHNE which was originally expected right after the DoJ.
                        This is not even an acceptable rendering of what this passage actually says, (imo), but I need not belabor that point because it is fair enough to get my point across:

                        Galatians 2:1-3 ASV
                        1 Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me.
                        2 And I went up by revelation; and I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain.
                        3 But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:


                        This is Titus since you apparently have no clue about who and what he is:

                        2 Corinthians 2:12-13 ASV
                        12 Now when I came to Troas for the gospel of Christ, and when a door was opened unto me in the Lord,
                        13 I had no relief for my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother: but taking my leave of them, I went forth into Macedonia.


                        And who or what led him into Macedonia? The vision which he was given from the Lord which opened up the door mentioned in the above passage. And who or what did he see in that vision? According to the above statement he saw Titus his "brother", that is, "the Man of Macedon" from the vision:

                        Acts 16:6-10 ASV
                        6 And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia;
                        7 and when they were come over against Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia; and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not;
                        8 and passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas.
                        9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: There was a man of Macedonia standing, beseeching him, and saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us.
                        10 And when he had seen the vision, straightway
                        we sought to go forth into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.

                        Please note that this is also the place where "Luke" first inserts himself into the text, (where the text says "we" highlighted in red). Thus this is the place and timing where Paul first meets Titus, (the man of Macedonia from the VISION), according to Paul's own testimony in 2Cor 2:12-13, and it is likewise the same time and place where "Luke" also joins him in the book of Acts, (and not surprisingly, seemingly out of nowhere). Therefore Paul "went up by revelation" with Titus who is the Man of Macedon from one of his VISIONS, dear blind one.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The bottom line:

                          1. Some people get the land (which eventually becomes the new earth)
                          2. Some people get the New Jerusalem
                          3. Some people get the heavens (which eventually becomes the new heavens)

                          Find out where you belong.
                          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


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
                            The bottom line:

                            1. Some people get the land (which eventually becomes the new earth)
                            2. Some people get the New Jerusalem
                            3. Some people get the heavens (which eventually becomes the new heavens)

                            Find out where you belong.
                            The (adopted) sons receive all of those things. Jerusalem of above is my mother, (that is mother-covenant, as per Gal 4:22-27, (Gal 4:26), which quotes from Isaiah 54:1-3, (Gal 4:27), where Jerusalem is clearly portrayed as the Mishkan-Tabernacle with her tent, curtains, cords, and stakes, (Isaiah 54:2)). The daughter of Zion-Jerusalem is therefore the New Covenant, (Zec 9:9 fulfilled in Mat 21:4-5 and John 12:15), which is New Jerusalem, (Rev 21:1-2). Thus Messiah already had the bride, (New Covenant), when he rode into Jerusalem on "Palm Sunday" because she was given to him from above, from the Father, from the heavens, (John 3:27, 29-36). And Paul agrees, (better said, my doctrine agrees with Paul's), because he quotes from Rev 21:4-5 in 2Cor 5:17. Because of these things I have said what I have said herein; for if anyone truly be "IN Messiah", the same is a new creation-creature:

                            2 Corinthians 5:17
                            17 Therefore if anyone be in Messiah, he is a new creature; old things are passed away: behold, all things are become new.(Rev 21:4-5)

                            Revelation 21:1-5
                            1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth are passed away; and the sea is no more.
                            2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from Elohim, as a bride having been prepared for the adornment of her man.
                            3 And I heard a great voice out of the throne saying, Behold, the Tabernacle of Elohim is with men, and He shall dwell with them, and they shall be His peoples, and Elohim himself shall be with them, and be their Elohim:
                            4 And He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more: for the former things are passed away.(2Cor 5:17)
                            5 And He that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new.(2Cor 5:17) And he saith, Write: for these words are faithful and true.


                            See also the Greek text of Hebrews 12:22, 23, 24 which both agrees and expounds. We go up to Jerusalem not by foot but on our knees, in prayer, (just as Daniel in Dan 6:10 and the entire ninth chapter of the book of Daniel). And anyone who does not go up shall receive no rain, (Zec 14:16-21), that is, the latter rain, for that is "the plague" upon Egypt. Egypt represents "the flesh", O Egypt, "great of flesh", Eze 16:26 KJV, which again speaks of Jerusalem and "the allegory of the covenants", (Eze 16:60,61,62), which Paul is expounding in Gal 4:22-27. The strictly physical-historical literalism of (hyper) Dispensationalism is just as blinding as the strictly physical-historical literalism of Preterism, (the only real difference is the date-setting of the apocalypse by the Preterist in 70AD which nullifies so much more of the Word as applying to themselves).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by daqq View Post
                              The (adopted) sons receive all of those things.
                              Nah.
                              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

                              Working...
                              X