Can Jewish law be fulfilled?

[smokydot]

Whatever.

[it's called Replacement or Supersessionist by the rest of the world - mainly because it's not 'from Scripture']

You mean the theology is not from Scripture. . .or the name?
Because neither is the name "replacement" or "supersessionist". . .or "Sovereignty of God" for that matter. . .but the theology sure is.

You might want to check out how much is "fulfilled" by Jesus in the gospels alone. . .

The NT is replete with fulfillment theology.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm curious about the NT verse that says, "Jesus wept." What do you think that means?

I think it means Jesus wept. . .what do you think?

I really love this particular story.

As you know, this is when Jesus arrives at the tomb of Lazarus. In the Greek it means "to cry out like a horse" - Jesus wasn't weeping, he was wailing.

It means that Jesus cares for us even when it seems like he's far away. As you know, Jesus was off doing ministry somewhere else when Lazarus was sick and dying. At the right time, Jesus came near and demonstrates how much he cares for us.

That's an outline of a sermon that I preach for churches who are suffering a split, just lost their pastor to death or abandonment, or otherwise are hurting.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You mean the theology is not from Scripture. . .or the name?
Because neither is the name "replacement" or "supersessionist". . .or "Sovereignty of God" for that matter. . .but the theology sure is.

You might want to check out how much is "fulfilled" by Jesus in the gospels alone. . .

The NT is replete with fulfillment theology.

Pick one.

We see what we want to see once we have a pet theology.

Replacement theology is no better than applying GLBT theory to the bible. It's the product of looking at Scripture from a particular perspective that is foreign to it.

 

[smokydot]

I really love this particular story.

As you know, this is when Jesus arrives at the tomb of Lazarus.

Well, actually I was referring to Jesus' last visit to Jerusalem when he was crucified (Lk 19:41).

when Jesus In the Greek it means "to cry out like a horse" - Jesus wasn't weeping, he was wailing.
It means that Jesus cares for us even when it seems like he's far away. As you know, Jesus was off doing ministry somewhere else when Lazarus was sick and dying. At the right time, Jesus came near and demonstrates how much he cares for us.
That's an outline of a sermon that I preach for churches who are suffering a split, just lost their pastor to death or abandonment, or otherwise are hurting.

Good sermon.

But what do you think the verse, "Jesus wept." means?

Based on your response that although "Scripture may say there are no other gods, that doesn't mean there are not," I would like to know if the Scripture, "Jesus wept." doesn't mean that he wept?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, actually I was referring to Jesus' last visit to Jerusalem when he was crucified (Lk 19:41).

Good sermon.

But what do you think the verse, "Jesus wept." means?

Based on your response that although "Scripture may say there are no other gods, that doesn't mean there are not," I would like to know if the Scripture, "Jesus wept." doesn't mean that he wept?

Well, I figured you were referring to the shortest verse in the Bible.

Besides, Lk 19.41 doesn't say "Jesus wept."

 

[smokydot]

Pick one.
We see what we want to see once we have a pet theology.

Or we deny what is overwhelmingly clear because it unseats our pet counter theology.

Replacement theology is no better than applying GLBT theory to the bible. It's the product of looking at Scripture from a particular perspective that is foreign to it.

Yeah, that's why it's not "replacement" theology, It is the fulfillment theology of the NT. . .from the gospels to the letter to the Hebrews, the NT is saturated with it. . .
far from being foreign to the NT, it is one of the cornerstones of NT theology.

This stuff is not scholarship according to the standard. . .stick with translating. . .your knowledge of Scripture is too weak to involve yourself in its theology.

 

[smokydot]

Well, I figured you were referring to the shortest verse in the Bible.

Fair enough.

Besides, Lk 19.41 doesn't say "Jesus wept."

So what does it say?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Or we deny what is overwhelmingly clear because it unseats our pet counter theology.
Yeah, that's why it's not "replacement" theology, It is the fulfillment theology of the NT. . .from the gospels to the letter to the Hebrews, the NT is saturated with it. . .far from being foreign to the NT, it is one of the cornerstones of NT theology.

This stuff is not scholarship according to the standard. . .stick with translating. . .your knowledge of Scripture is too weak to involve yourself in its theology.

:biglaugh:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Fair enough.
So what does it say?

ESV Luke 19:41 And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it.

The word "Jesus" does not appear.

And you referred to "the verse" indicating that the entire verse was "Jesus wept."

But what do you think the verse, "Jesus wept." means?

While you may have been thinking of Luke (I can't see how), it cannot be the verse "Jesus wept."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This stuff is not scholarship according to the standard. . .stick with translating. . .your knowledge of Scripture is too weak to involve yourself in its theology.

I don't even know what you mean by this.

What do you think the "scholarship according to the standard is?" I've read more than 50,000 pages of material for just the first four chapters of my dissertation and God knows how much before then. I know what standard scholarship is. Your standard is Dr. P.

 

[smokydot]

I don't care to. I'm not very interested in the Westminster confession right now. That's why I referred you to some books.

So, contrary to your claim that theology is not found "in" the Scriptures, the theology of the original Westminster Confession is found "in" the Scriptures, until
you show otherwise.

Just want it to be clear that:

1) you have not demonstrated your assertion that the theology of the original Westminster Confession is not found "in" the Scriptures and, therefore,

2) your claim does not rise above the level of mere "assertion". . .to the level of "proof and fact."

 

[smokydot]

haha, no it doesn't. I was simply providing an example for you that there's no such thing as negative evidence.

So then, if your statement: "Sure the Scripture may say there are no other gods, but that doesn't mean there are not." is not an indication that you don't believe the Scripture, then what does it mean?

It's a very simple rule of proof in logical argumentation.
For the rest of you questions, they don't apply to my point at all (just as the first)-- as you've said, it's a matter of faith. We can't prove God exists, and atheists can prove that God doesn't. We can't prove it because we can't meet the standard of proof required, and more importantly for my point, atheists can't because they can't provide egative evidence.

The rest of my question was based on your previous response that just because Scripture says there are no other gods does not mean there are not.
So I want to know what the Scripture, "Jesus wept." means.

I think it means Jesus wept. Do you think it means that he didn't weep?

 

[smokydot]

I don't even know what you mean by this.
What do you think the "scholarship according to the standard is?" I've read more than 50,000 pages of material for just the first four chapters of my dissertation and God knows how much before then. I know what standard scholarship is. Your standard is Dr. P.

See http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2328863-post1051.html

Ah, yes. . .my favorite Oxford Don, "Dr. P." is unfailingly accurate, piercing and comprehensive in his Biblical theology. His depth and understanding of God's Word written produces praise and obedience in the reader. He can give a sea of matter in a drop of language.

That is scholarship based in faith. . .which is the only real and true scholarship of the Scriptures.. . .for the Scriptures are not truly understood outside belief in them.

He is a scholar's scholar. . .with impeccable credentials, as well as track record. Christ's church is so blessed to have him.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You are that uninformed Bible student, receiving as truth much false information about the Scriptures, because your knowledge of Scripture is too weak to recognize the grievous errors of your professors.

And that's not laughable. . .that's sad. . .really sad. . .because, like the chemistry student, you don't even realize it.

I wasn't laughing at myself. I was tickled by your insolence.

 

[smokydot]

Thanks for asking, but no. I am basing that post mostly on my reading of Romans and 1 Corinthians. If you want to challenge it biblically, fine, but I'm not going to waste my time going through my notes for specific bible verses for each post that I write.

Okay, you find laughable (link below) my statement that "your knowlegde of the NT is too weak for you to involve yourself in its theology."

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2328839-post1048.html

Well. . .your response here is what I am talking about.
If you are going to involve yourself in the theology of the NT, you shouldn't have to go through your notes for the specific Bible verses relating to Paul's "pathologies," particularly when you have a concordance. You should have at least a working knowledge of the issues in question there.
But your knowledge of the NT is weak, so you are in no position to evaluate the truth and accuracy of any teaching you receive regarding it.

It's like the student new to chemistry, whose professor tells the class that gold is the most active element in the table, and that to mix the two deadly elements, chlorine and sodium, would produce a deadly toxic mix. The student has no way of evaluating the truth of those statements, so he enters them into his notes. . .and they become the "truth" he regurgitates until he realizes how ridiculous it is. Had he any acquaintance with the table of elements, he would have recognized immediately the grievous errors of his professor.

You are that uninformed Bible student, receiving as truth much false information about the Scriptures, because your knowledge of Scripture is too weak to recognize the grievous errors of your professors.

And that's not laughable. . .that's sad. . .really sad. . .because, like the chemistry student, you don't even realize it.

A D.Phil does not guarantee scholarship any more than sleeping in the garage guarantees you are a car.
True Biblical scholarship is impossible without faith in the Word of God written.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

... particularly when you have a concordance....

:clap:biglaugh::clap

 

[angellous_evangellous]

True Biblical scholarship is impossible without faith in the Word of God written.

:thud:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's like the student new to chemistry, whose professor tells the class that gold is the most active element in the table, and that to mix the two deadly elements, chlorine and sodium, would produce a deadly toxic mix. The student has no way of evaluating the truth of those statements, so he enters them into his notes. . .and they become the "truth" he regurgitates until he realizes how ridiculous it is. Had he any acquaintance with the table of elements, he would have recognized immediately the grievous errors of his professor.

You are that uninformed Bible student, receiving as truth much false information about the Scriptures, because your knowledge of Scripture is too weak to recognize the grievous errors of your professors.

Smoky,

I can't believe I have to repeat this again to you....

When you attack others, you only embarrass yourself. Of all the insults I've seen you hurl at myself and others, you haven't once had enough information to judge.

Where you in my classrooms? Did you read my papers? Have you read my publications?

I don't know what my professors believe about the Bible or theology, and I've never asked. My undergrad profs refused to tell me, and I just assumed that my grad and post-grad profs would do the same. And they did. Education is not about a prof indoctrinating a student, it's about facilitating thought.

So there's no "repeating stuff until it's true" BS.

Because of your unsurpassed rudeness, that's all I'm going to say about that.

 

[smokydot]

You find laughable (link following) my statement that "your knowledge of Scripture is too weak to involve yourself in its theology."

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2328839-post1048.html

You are that uninformed Bible student, receiving as truth much false information about the Scriptures, because your knowledge of Scripture is too weak to recognize the grievous errors of your professors.

And that's not laughable. . .that's sad. . .really sad. . .because, like the chemistry student, you don't even realize it.

I wasn't laughting at myself.

Absolutely true statement. . .with absolutely no relevance or bearing on the point at issue above.

I was tickled by your insolence.

Insolence would be more than a fitting response to your insolence regarding NT theology.

 

[smokydot]

:clap:biglaugh::clap

:bow: