Artistic Rendering of the Prophet Agabus
Speak Fair, Bold Agabus
Breaking the Spell Apocalypticism
By NeoDromos
The gift of prophecy was undeniably present in the First Century church. This included prophecy in the general sense as an inspired message from God but also the subset of predictive prophecy. And there were prophets in the church. And the Apostle Paul paid high regard for those who were in this role (I Cor 12:28). But was there a defined scope for the exercise of the prophetic gift? I believe there was and will make the case in this article.
Condition One: Christ is the Culmination of Old Testament Prophecy (Matthew 5:17)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the …the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17)
“For all the prophets …prophesied until John.” (Matthew 11:13)
These scriptures are largely invoked in reference to controversies about the law. I have removed references to the law in the above verses so that the topic of prophecy will stand out. In the first scripture, the capitalized term “Prophets” refers to those sections of the OT that contain prophecy not people who hold the office of prophet.
The prophecies of the Old Testament were not about modern nations and geopolitics. These prophecies, according to the cited scriptures above, were across the board about Jesus. It is difficult to grasp how a prophecy concerning Assyria attacking Israel could be about Jesus. But consider how if there were not an explanation in the New Testament of Jonah’s being in the belly of the Great Fish, we would not make the connection with Jesus. Luke wrote in 26:45, “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures…” It is not the identity of certain nations that unlocks Bible prophecy, as some assert, it is Jesus himself.
There is no reason to assume that we have the depth of understanding of the scripture that Jesus gave as a special gift to his disciples. In verse 46, Luke wrote, “And he (Jesus) said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day…” If you feel that you are endowed with a special understanding of the Bible because of your association with a certain denomination, find where it states v. 46 in the Old Testament as a prophecy. The disciples of Jesus at that time were miraculously given this understanding. They understood the Bible at a level that we do not.
The point is, if Jesus said he was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy then he was and is. You cannot buttonhole him and talk Britain, the United States, Germany, and the Common Market nations. He was that fulfillment, just as he said, whether you understand it or not. Assyria conquered Israel and the event was controlled by Jesus and the object lesson is in Jesus and that ship has sailed. The upshot is that Old Testament prophecy is done. Every retrospective understanding of OT prophecy must now have meaning and relevance only in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
Condition Two: Christ Forbids Prophecy Regarding the Parousia (Acts 1:7)
Q: “When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?”
Jesus: “… It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.”
Jesus forbade prophecy regarding Parousia. The surrogate language for the Parousia in the scripture above is the restoration of the kingdom. This means the limits of knowledge of the future Parousia extended in the First Century as far as they ever would. Subsequent generations could add nothing. And any attempt to predict the Parousia would be an encroachment on the power of God the Father to schedule the eschatological event. These words are from the mouth of Jesus. After all, Jesus himself gave the prophecy concerning the Parousia in Matthew 24. Why would it need future expansion? In his own prophetic statement, Jesus warns against false prophets in Matthew 24, saying, “For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce great signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” Combining the principles spoken by Jesus in Matthew 24 and Acts 1, the lesson is that any prophecy that Jesus did not directly make concerning the Parousia is a false prophecy.
Condition Three: The Agabus Precedent (Acts 11:27-28)
“And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: Which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.”
Agabus was a prophet who foretold the future. Later he foretold something disastrous that would happen to Paul. The Agabus Model of prophecy included only near-term prophecies that were of strategic importance to the church or to an individual. Agabus did not during his career as a prophet provide a revision of the prophecy concerning the Parousia as an independent opus. There are no documents to my knowledge that record any prophecies of Agabus other than the New Testament.
Agabus did not seek to modify or re-work the large-scale prophecies given by Jesus. He apparently understood Acts 1:7. Consider that Jesus did not return in the expected timeframe. The events of 70 AD came and went. Paul began to realize that the church had misunderstood the timing of the Parousia. It was a time of discouragement in the church. If there was ever a time when an update of prophecy concerning the Parousia would be critical to the church, it was that time. Yet, Paul did not ask Agabus for a new rendition of the prophecy concerning the Parousia after Jesus did not return. Nor did Paul not go to one of the recognized prophets in the church and ask to have the whole Parousia thing straightened out by the issuing of a new and updated prophecy. Jesus’ Matthew 24 prophecy is what it is, then and now.
Note: An interesting read is the part of Didache, circa First Century, that deals with prophets. It explains how legitimate prophets should be treated in the church. It also explains how to distinguish a false prophet from a real prophet. One criterion stated early: “… but if he (the prophet being evaluated) ask for money, he is a false prophet.” See The Didache, on Prophets
The Empirical Consequences – The Great Disappointment of 1844
I don’t know if one would class William Miller as a prophet. Some refer to him as a millenarian prophet. Maybe he was just an interpreter of Biblical prophecies. But he did innovate times and circumstances. Whatever his status, he was involved in predicting the Parousia and the start of the millennium. Some branches of modern Millerism are still apocalyptic, for instance, the Davidian Seventh Day Adventists, the various Armstrongist denominations, and others.
Apocalypticism among Millerites seems to be focused on the prophecies concerning the Parousia in contravention to Acts 1:7. The classical outcome of this approach is found in the Great Disappointment of 1844 when Millerites expected the Parousia to happen and it dramatically did not. This has been a continuous theme in other apocalyptic Millerite groups. The events of history are instructive to those who would heed them. Jesus meant what he said in Acts 1:7. And we have the recorded history of the repeated empirical evidence.
Summarizing the Case
No doubt there are other conditions that constrain the gift of prophecy in the church. I have invoked only the three most obvious. But apparently in the fervor for the Parousia, even the obvious is overlooked. These are the three conditions:
1. Jesus is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and repurposing OT prophecy for application to modern times does not have Biblical support.
2. Jesus specifically closed the door on prophecy that supplemented what he had already said about the Parousia in response to questioning by his disciples.
3. The Agabus Model limits prophecy to prophesying events of pragmatic and strategic value in the near term. The Model nowhere supports the idea of re-working or reissuing the major prophecies of Jesus concerning the Eschaton.
The early church, which respected such prophets as Agabus, would have recoiled at the idea of using end-time prophecy, the engine of Apocalypticism, to engender fear as a technique for fund-raising. They would have especially looked askance at anyone trying to overlay or modify what Jesus already stated and sealed.
26 comments:
Neo,
You have articulated why the Armstrong prophetic model has repeatedly failed (and why they will continue to fail in this area). Instead of trying to find Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, they try to find themselves in those writings! This arrogant and egocentric approach to interpreting OT prophets is obviously flawed and doomed to fail. Instead of seeing Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the promises God made to David, they insert the British royal family (or one of their own) as such. Instead of seeing Moses, Elijah, David, Zerubbabel, etc. as types of Christ, they insist that they represent the modern manifestations of those men of God! Talk about the antithesis of humility! Good stuff, you hit the proverbial nail on the head!
"If you feel that you are endowed with a special understanding of the Bible because of your association with a certain denomination, find where it states v. 46 lLuke 24] in the Old Testament as a prophecy."
*****************************************
Hosea 6:2? Jesus was a "forerunner" for us but if you disagree about Hosea, OK. I don't have any special understanding because of any denomination association. Quite the opposite. Present beliefs have developed apart from any denomination and certainly apart from any Armstrongist organization.
I have to note: prophets were after John, such as Agabus and others. And it seems the statement that all OT prophecies are fulfilled is too general. The 70 weeks have yet to be completed. And to fulfill is to fill up. You have a glass of water 1/2 full. Someone adds water and the glass is full. Is the water that was there when the glass was half full now gone, removed, "destroyed"? No.
In regard to prophecy in the NT, here are some comments on the Man of Sin, that may be of interest:
1Th 5:4 But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief.
“For some readers, a number of questions may well arise at this point. For example, doesn’t Paul says here contradict 1 Thessalonians 5:2, where he wrote that “the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night”? Not at all, Paul wrote that the day of the Lord will “come like a thief’ only for unbelievers (cf. 5:3). Believers, he writes, “are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief” (5:4)...” (Michael W. Holmes, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, NIVAC, pp.238-39).
2 Th 2:1 ...the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ...
2 Th 2:3 ... will not come until the rebellion [apostasia] occurs and the man of lawlessness [anomia] is revealed
"Second Thessalonians 2 is the only passage in all his letters where Paul discusses the "man of lawlessness," and he does so here only because of the extraordinary circumstances in Thessalonica required him to do so. Furthermore, even as he discusses this figure, he leaves no doubt about his ultimate fate. He will be defeated by the Lord Jesus himself (2:8). Moreover, his discussion is bounded on either side by prayer or thanksgiving reports (1:11-12; 2:13-14) that focus on Jesus. The pattern Paul models here - he keeps his primary focus on Jesus and speaks of Antichrist no more than he has to..." (Michael W. Holmes, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, NIVAC, p.244).
Paul "begins with a reminder about what must take place "first," namely, "the rebellion," which includes "the revelation of the man of lawlessness" (Gordon D. Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, NICNT, p.280).
"Paul takes it for granted ... that his readers knows what he means by "the rebellion [apostasia]" and says nothing further about it" (Michael W. Holmes, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, NIVAC, p.230)...
2Th 2:4a Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped;
2 Th 2:4b so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
Dan 11:36 ... and the king shall exalt and magnify himself against every god... (Brenton, LXX).
Eze 28:2 ... thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas...
“... For much of the rest of the sentence Paul is indebted to the language of Daniel 11:36 LXX and Ezekiel 28:2... thus Daniel describes him as "exalting himself against ‘the God of gods' " meaning the one God above all others that might be thought of as "gods." This is both the language and imagery that Paul uses in the first half of this clause (v.4a). The description of the Rebel as "opposing and exalting himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped is, as in the Old Testament passages, a way if describing total arrogance. Thus with this adoption of the language of Daniel, Paul reveals his understanding of that passage as referring to an event that was yet to come..." (Gordon D. Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, NICNT, p.283)...
Dan 11:36 ... exalt and magnify himself above [epi] every [panta] God [theon]... (LXX).
2Th 2:4a exalteth himself above [epi] every [panta] so-called [legomenon] God [theon].
"By inserting legomenon into the language of Daniel, Paul portrays the absolute monotheism that belongs to his generation. Thus Daniel's "every deity" in Paul's terms is "every so-called deity"... (Gordon D. Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, NICNT, p.283)...
Part 2
2 Th 2:4b so that he as God sitteth in the temple [naos] of God, proclaiming [apodeiknymi] himself to be God.
Eze 28:2 ... thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas...
"The Ezekiel passage is a prophecy against the king of Tyre, who, "in the pride of [his] heart" said, "I am a god; I sit on the throne of a god." Using Ezekiel's language and imagery, Paul thus reminds the Thessalonians that the evidence of the Rebel's arrogance will be to "set himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God" (Gordon D. Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, NICNT, p.283).
"The man of lawlessness will occupy the holy precincts in order to accept and even demand worship that is due God alone. This evidently is a Jewish temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem in the future [contra Bob Thiel]. Dependence on Daniel 9:26, 27; 11:31, 36, 37; 12:11 (cf. Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14) demands such a reference. There is no impressive evidence for understanding naon ("temple") in a nonliteral sense. The well-known "abomination that causes desolation" is sometimes regarded as a person and sometimes as an act of desecration by that person (Mark 13:14) (Hubbard, Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p.1364). The act of desecration to which this verse looks will transpire half-way through the seventieth prophetic week of Daniel 9:24-27, when the covenant made earlier with the Jewish people is broken..." (Robert L. Thomas, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, EBC, Vol.11, p.322)...
2 Th 2:8a the lawless one will be revealed [apolkalupto]
2Th 1:7b the Lord Jesus shall be revealed [apokaluptsis]
2 Th 2: 9 The coming (parousia) of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan...1Th 3:13 ... the coming [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.
"As Stott observes, "the coming of Antichrist will be such a clever parody of the coming Christ that many will be taken in by the satanic deception" [J.R.W. Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, p.172]" (Michael W. Holmes, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, NIVAC, p.246)...
"Antichrist appears again in the NT in the Apocalypse, although he is not called by that name there... In the first ten verses of ... chapter [13] we can hardly fail to recognize a more detailed description of the man of lawlessness of 2 Thess 2..." (F.F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, WBC, p.181)
"Since phraseology from these prophecies [of Daniel] was picked up both by Jesus (in his Olivet discourse and by Paul (in 2 Thes. 2), Antiochus Epiphanes became a prototype of Antichrist" (John R.W. Stott, The Message of Thessalonians, BST, pp.162-63).
Neo: thanks for this great post; prophesy is indeed one of the fatal errors of Armstrongism.
This morning, my reading was Ephesians 3; which dovetails nicely with your thesis.
The poor Armstrongists are addicted to the shadows that point to Jesus while exhibiting a distaste for the reality found in Jesus (Colossians 2:17 & Hebrews 10:1).
Sadly, the Armstrongists are not interested in the Mystery of Christ, revealed by the Holy Spirit and prophets.
Ephesians 3:2-5:
Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.
Herbie got the people hooked on his prophesy opium while clouding the purpose of prophecy.
The people became numb to the boundless richness of Jesus and original Christianity's mission to make plain the administration of this mystery, which for past ages was kept hidden - Ephesians 3:8-9.
A Sabbath prayer for love and knowledge for all Armstrongists, from Ephesians 3:16-19:
I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith.
And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge — that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.
It should be duly noted that William Miller and his 1844 "Great Disappointment" was NOT a Sabbatarian, but rather a Baptist.
Anonymous 12:19
The scripture you cite, Hosea 6:2, is not a reference to the Messiah. It is a call made to Israel for repentance. The timing mentioned does not even fit the chronological circumstances of the resurrection. The scripture states:
"After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will raise us up,
that we may live before him."
To believe that this is a prophecy of the resurrection of Jesus is a case of eisegesis.
Jesus stated that he fulfilled the Prophets. (Note: That statement is all-inclusive. He did not exempt anything.) His statement not mine. He said the terminus of their prophecies was with the coming of John. His statement not mine. This means that whatever idiosyncratic prophetic renderings that anyone comes up with, like the 70 weeks prophecy, just does not carry water. HWA and Victor Houteff were given to this kind of misapplication of prophecy. HWA started with finding world events in the designi of The Great Pyramid. And misapplied prophecy is and has been the life-breath of apocalyptic Millerism.
Part of the problem is that apocalyptic Millerites do not recognize that the Kingdom of God is already here in a provisional, yet to be expanded way. HWA recognized this later in his life. He began to talk frequently about how the church was "the Kingdom of God in embryo." He never explored how this view altered some of the favorite apocalyptic Millerite prophecies. His belated acknowledgement of a fact that is easily established from scripture and common understanding in mainstream Christianity should have led to a wholesale revision of the Armstrongist prophetic legendarium.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
There is nothing in the Old Testament that was ever meant to predict a Jesus of the Gospels. Nothing in the Old Testament was ever meant to foretell Jesus. Nothing in the Old Testament was ever actually about Jesus to come.
New Testament writers seeking the details of the life and meaning of Jesus, to them, reached back into the Old Testament to over read, reinterpret and tweek the scriptures to mean it was about Jesus. It is why it so strongly seems that the OT is actually predicting Jesus. It is a back written story based on unrelated scriptures in the OT.
Matthew is the classic example of this where in his "and thus it was fulfilled" passages, uses the OT to flesh out the Birth Narrative of Jesus, which no one actually knew anything about, and making the Old Testament scriptures mean what they never did mean in their original context.
As well, another theory of the origins of the Gospels is found in the concept of "Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill. I find this fascinating and credible for the times after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 Ad.
If indeed it was the Romans, with the aid of Josephus and the Alexanders who actually constructed the Gospel Jesus to pacify the religion of both Messianic Jews and Zealot Christians who opposed Rome so violently with their militaristic Messiah, using the Old Testament scriptures to do it would make perfect sense and be the ideal source to give their new and pacifistic Jesus all the boost he would need to be accepted over time. If possibly so, the Romans certainly had the motive, the Jewish scholars and the means to pull this off.
As a side not, The Book of Daniel also seems so prophetically accurate, predicting the rise and fall of Nations because it was written AFTER those nations had risen and fallen. Daniel was written in the 160's BCE and not by any Daniel in the 6th Century BCE. It was written to encourage the Jews during the Maccabean Revolt just as Revelation, which relied a lot on Daniel was written to encourage the Jewish Christians during the siege of Jerusalem prior to it's destruction in 70 AD. One only need notice how detailed Daniel 11 is about what had already happened and how generic chapter 12 is because the author no longer knew what was going to happen.
This post states, "The prophecies of the Old Testament were not about modern nations and geopolitics. These prophecies, according to the cited scriptures above, were across the board about Jesus." The first observation is absolutely true. The OT prophecies were about nations and circumstance for THEM back when issued. The second observation that it was all about Jesus is false. It was never about Jesus to come. It was made to be about Jesus by NT writers. It was done so because no one had a good story about much of anything about Jesus that was factual to his own time and life.
"Prophecy is not history prophesied. It is prophecy historized for another purpose"
I recognize I have said most of this over almost two decades now, so it is not new here and I won't belabor the issue, but it is a concept and perspective that is held by critical Biblical scholars, and I agree. The evidence is right there in the Book.
Thanks for reading.
PS Should one like to explore this perspective,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0CmHr0lLjU.
The theory and explanation of "Caesar's Messiah" can be watched here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmEScIUcvz0
And Bob Thiel chimes in with a sermon on why his prophetic interpretations are correct and the "Laodicean" COGs are wrong. In doing so, Bob reveals another reason why Armstrongist prophecies err: dependence on fringe doctrines - BI, Church Eras, Place of Safety, etc.
In addition, CCOG was, according to Bob, the only COG to predict COVID and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, to which no one, it seems, paid heed...
Dennis 6:57:
I, of course, disagree. This is the problem of christotelicity - the use of OT scriptures that were originally unrelated to Jesus to later describe Jesus. I have no trouble seeing the OT as having a text and a subtext. I would expect that kind of profundity. But for Biblical literalists, like fundamentalists and atheists, it is a pivotal issue. For Christian literalists, the OT contains nothing about Jesus except where the NT specifically makes a christotelic connection. For atheists, the OT contains nothing about Jesus at all and christotelicity in the NT is just unjustified attribution. For the non-literalist, mainstream followers of The Way, the OT is a Jesus Story.
I see in the Passover and Exodus, for instance, an allegory of salvation as brought to us by Jesus. Others would point out that there is no reference in the OT to the Messiah in these events. Some recognize only the text. Others recognize the text and a subtext. The difference between the two categories is a matter of faith. It's the difference between Bart Ehrman and David Bentley Hart. I am happy to be in the second category. Some, especially Armstrongists, would balk at the OT being a Jesus Story. But I believe that it is. I believe that it has literary coherence.
Did the disciples try to make Jesus look like the Messiah by recruiting OT statements? Or did Jesus open their minds to be able to read the subtext? I believe that men who were willing to give themselves over to martyrdom were of the second viewpoint.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
CCOG was, according to Bob, the only COG to predict COVID and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, to which no one, it seems, paid heed...
That's the thing about Bob's mushy and vague "predictions" and "prophecies." You will never recognize that he prophesied until AFTER the prophecy is fulfilled.
You will never recognize that he prophesied until AFTER the prophecy is fulfilled.
Like prophecy buffs claiming Nostradamus predicted the Challenger disaster...
Dennis said, "There is nothing in the Old Testament that was ever meant to predict a Jesus of the Gospels. Nothing in the Old Testament was ever meant to foretell Jesus. Nothing in the Old Testament was ever actually about Jesus to come."
MY COMMENT - Dennis, how do you square your statement with Isaiah 7:14 which reads: Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Immanuel meaning "God is with us".
Richard
Dennis,
Joseph Atwill's narrative that the Flavians invented Jesus Christ ignores a whole lot of history and does not agree with the majority of reputable scholarship on the subject. First, it is almost universally recognized among biblical scholars that some of Paul's epistles are the earliest Christian writings available to us - predating the writing of our current versions of the gospels by many years (20-40 years, depending on which writings are being referenced and which scholars you believe). And these most certainly predate the Flavians. Second, the fact that the last Julio-Claudian ruler persecuted Christians and appeared to be the object of the author of the book of Revelation's wrath also demonstrates that Christianity was established before the Flavians and discredits the notion that the new religion was pro-Roman. Third, there was a great persecution of Christians under the Flavian Emperor Domitian (which also contradicts the notion that that dynasty promulgated the religion). Fourth, if Christianity was designed by the Flavians to be a more docile and acceptable version of Judaism, then we would have to rank this as one of the greatest failed conspiracies of all time - the majority of Jews did NOT embrace the new religion, and many early Christians were NOT docile. Fifth, I would argue that the gospels clearly portray the Romans and their Herodian clients in a very negative light. Herod is portrayed as wanting to kill the Christ. According to the gospel narrative, John the Baptist was beheaded by Herod Antipas. Likewise, Christ is sentenced to death by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate and is subsequently crucified by them. Yes, the Jews are portrayed as the instigators, but the Romans are clearly the only ones who had the authority to actually carry out the deed! Sixth, NO ONE disputes the fact that the writings of the Old Testament are full of Messianic prophecies - the only dispute is whether or not they refer to Jesus of Nazareth. Seventh, you are certainly within your rights to reject the premise that the Old Testament laws, rituals, holy days, sacrifices and prophecies point to Jesus. It is, however, the PREMISE of the Christian religion that they do. In other words, although you reject the existence and work of the Holy Spirit, Christians believe that the Holy Spirit within them points to Christ in the Law and Prophets. Thus, it is a matter of personal conviction and belief, and your arguments from a position of unbelief will be unpersuasive to the audience you are trying to convince. Eighth, most scholars (including Bart Ehrman and James Tabor) believe that there IS historical and/or archeological evidence to support the existence of a real flesh and blood Jesus. Ninth, the fact that emperors and governments have appropriated the Christian religion to serve their own ends does NOT constitute proof that they are responsible for creating it, sustaining it, perpetuating it, or controlling it. Once again, Atwill's historical narrative is incomplete/inaccurate in this connection. The Roman Catholic Church did not really come into existence until the Fourth Century, and its authority was not widely recognized within Western Christendom until a couple of centuries after that. Finally, the popular narrative about pagan influences on Christianity has been skillfully debunked in Ehrman's "The Triumph of Christianity." The real historical narrative is that Christianity obliterated and replaced paganism (and that paganism was fundamentally different from the Christianity of Jesus and Paul, as outlined in the writings know to us as the New Testament).
Some will say that my view on prophecy has removed it relevancy. The Bible is up-to-the-minute and deals with modern nations. The response is:
1. Genetic science proves that Herman Hoeh misidentified many of the modern descendants of ancient nations. What is the value in that?
2. The message of Jesus Christ concerning salvation, his life, his death and resurrection is up-to-the-minute and relevant in the most critical and enduring way. The idea that Bible prophecy deals with end-time geopolitics is a diversion from the message of Jesus.
********* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
(Im at work) Richard. "Gid is with us" means God is on our side in the context of the Assyrian threat if the day. It is not about a Jesus being a god who has come down to us in the future.
Miller. It is a huge topic of course and all the realities can be addressed. Atwill and all who study such things are well aware of who is who and when they wrote. I am intrigued by the explanation and it fits my own perspectives on Paul and and the Gospel accounts and origins. Even the NT church had problems with those who denied ever coming in the flesh.
To much to say on a phone keypad
😊✌
The Jesus of the gospels which Paul never heard of and never quoted was not the Christ of Paul. Paul's early view can be seen as more Gnostic than literal. Nuther long story. His Jesus was hallucinatory and in visions. When he says "have I not seen the Lord" ot is more "have I not experienced the Lord"
IMHO
I only seek to state my own perspectives as you do yours. Not a fan of Holy Spirit or Ghost's questionable influence. Everyone falls back on that source for their personal inspiration, practices and views
I am 12:09 and 12:15 of course. I strayed😁 I only meant to address the OT being all about Jesus in prophecy. I am not meaning to engage on Banned much, if at all . Actually I only meant to say I had lunch with Joe Tkach😁
Gary will post my upcoming Wadsworth part 3 on RCG with Marc CeBrian . Of I can figure out ZOOM
😂👈
". . the Flavians invented Jesus Christ"? or maybe a band of gypsies?
Knowing the complexity and spirituality of the subject, I personally agree with Des Ford's assessment that " it would require A CHRIST to invent a Christ "!!
Richard, even honest fundamentalist scholars will concede that the the Isaiah 7:14 word you translate as "virgin" is most properly translated "maiden" or "young woman."
Read what thoughtful Jews have said about it:
Isaiah 7:14 - A Virgin Birth?
The bible is a hoax. I can't believe people waste their time on it in this day and age.
@ 3:00 "proclaiming [apodeiknymi]"
related to our word kerygma (I'd say?)
@ 2:45 ..but back then a maiden would assumed to be a virgin?
Apparently 859 believes the theory that the Bible was written by a band of gypsies sitting around a campfire and therefore a hoax! Very astute. Instead of judging the book try reading it. It contains a lot more valuable wisdom than you'll find in "this day and age"!
Post a Comment