Glorious H. Hope! Look what they done to my Savior, Ma….
posted at 12:40 pm on March 27, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
One Toronto church decided that they had enough of divisiveness this Lenten season, and decided to take a stand. No more would incendiary rhetoric be used to inflame the passions of the congregation. No more would the United Church endorse an outdated theology, at least not the West Hill Protestant United Christian Church. Their pastor struck these dreaded words from their Easter hymnal …. Jesus Christ?
That triumphal barnburner of an Easter hymn, Jesus Christ Has Risen Today – Hallelujah, this morning will rock the walls of Toronto’s West Hill United Church as it will in most Christian churches across the country.
But at West Hill on the faith’s holiest day, it will be done with a huge difference. The words “Jesus Christ” will be excised from what the congregation sings and replaced with “Glorious hope.”
Thus, it will be hope that is declared to be resurrected – an expression of renewal of optimism and the human spirit – but not Jesus, contrary to Christianity’s central tenet about the return to life on Easter morning of the crucified divine son of God.
Generally speaking, no divine anybody makes an appearance in West Hill’s Sunday service liturgy.
It’s Easter without God and Jesus Christ! What a breakthrough! Now all we need is a Toronto Argonauts game on the telly, and the West Hill congregation won’t have any reason to attend at all.
The pastor, Rev. Gretta Vosper, has had it with “Big God-ism” and wants to turn the West Hill United Church into a New Age encounter group. Vosper says that the world has outgrown Jesus Christ and the church is finished unless it gives up God, Jesus, and pretty much the entire Bible, except possibly for the Sermon on the Mount. Her new book, With or Without God, makes plain her hostility to the tenets of Christianity over the last two millenia and the need to replace God with Human.
The Anchoress is appalled:
Do you know why these “progressive” Christians want to “progress” right through the tenets of Christianity into the grim world of neither-faith-nor-reason but self-actualizing instinct and “hopeful” feelings? Why they want Jesus with no Christ, God with a small g and all that? Can you take a guess?
If you said “it is the logical culmination of baby-boomer narcissism and that generations’ tireless effort to deconstruct the universe and put itself at the center of all things” then ding, ding, ding! You win the daily double!
It recalls to mind a conversation I had with a friend of mine who was an observant Reform Jew about the group Jews for Jesus. He told me with a laugh that Jews have a name for them — Christians. We Christians have a name for ministers who proclaim the end of God and Jesus in their Christian churches — atheists.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Actually the Black Lib Theology to which TUCC subscribes is a perfect example of the narcissism of which the Anchoress speaks. Any Lib Theology is, for that matter, since it aims to make one group of humans morally superior to another.
baldilocks on March 27, 2008 at 4:24 PM
LIke Tim Hortons without the doughnuts?
mymanpotsandpans on March 27, 2008 at 4:29 PM
You might be thinking about Revelation 17 – which includes:
Actually, the Whore of Babylon was Jerusalem, and Christ burned her like a whore in AD 70, and took a new bride, the Church.
Akzed on March 27, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Not all of us Canuckistani Christians are like this gal. The United church is pretty much leading the pack on this kind of heresy, and even within it, such heresy is widely out of sync with its membership. That said, the UCC is quickly becoming a unitarian church.
paulmorrison on March 27, 2008 at 4:42 PM
The Church of the Eternal Feel-Goodery. Don’t get hung up on sin and redemption, baby. St. Austin Powers will show you the way.
Mallard T. Drake on March 27, 2008 at 4:43 PM
In Revelation, “earth” would be better translated as “land,” referring to the Land (of Israel) on which the tribes (of Israel) mourn as their end nears. Revelation is not about the end of the world, it’s about the end of Israel. The stars falling in Rev. 6 should be compared to the signs of Acts 2, which were also prophesied against Edom, Babylon, Egypt, and other of Israel’s OT enemies.
A great book in this vein is David Chilton’s “Days of Vengeance.” It’s now free online, if you google it you’ll find it.
Akzed on March 27, 2008 at 4:47 PM
I’ll be sure to point that out to the generations of biblical scholars and translators who have somehow missed this. That changes everything.
/s
samuelrylander on March 27, 2008 at 5:00 PM
the religious left
a bunch of ball suckers
blatantblue on March 27, 2008 at 5:02 PM
I’m sure John Shelby Spong is in the mix somewhere, offering what I like to refer to as “Spong-y” theology. I don’t remember if it was on this site or somewhere else that I read it, but there’s also a publishing company that produced Easter curriculum for preschooler’s that ended with the Last Supper. Seems the crucifixion was considered too distressing for preschool parishioner’s to contemplate, and the celebration of His resurrection wouldn’t have made sense if the death wasn’t covered… although the traditional story was offered as an “alternate” ending for churches that chose to use it.
Incidentally, I know growth is not the only determinant of effectiveness, but comparing the growth of conservative, evangelical, pentecostal/charismatic churches with the decline of progressive denominations does seem to indicate that people are looking for churches that actually believe their sacred literature is true.
cs89 on March 27, 2008 at 5:15 PM
These people aren’t Christians, they aren’t even religious . . . they’re just more damn leftist fools.
rplat on March 27, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Easter without Christ? I guess that was the logical next step…
Our secular humanist culture has had Christmas without Christ for quite some time…they call it XMAS. (X–out Christ and “Christmas” becomes “XMAS”).
…atheists or secular humanists.
Taking Christ out of Easter (Resurrection) Sunday is far worse than taking him out of Christmas, because:
That “pastor” should read all of 1 Corinthians 15.
I have my own term for a “pastor” who says the world has outgrown Jesus Christ and the church is finished unless it gives up God, Jesus, and pretty much the entire Bible, except possibly for the Sermon on the Mount.
I don’t call that person a “pastor”, I call them a “fraud”.
Red Pill on March 27, 2008 at 5:32 PM
My father-in -law left the Episcopal Church because of Spong. Instead of giving to the truly needy, Spong wanted parishoner’s donations to go to gay social clubs. Priorities, priorities.
The other gem (just kidding!) that I’m personally familiar with is Bishop Paul Moore, Jr.
Buy Danish on March 27, 2008 at 6:01 PM
In fact, the Scofield Reference Notes, cribbed from John Nelson Darby, were the innovative and novel eschatological position – nearly two millenia after the Revelation was given. Only a slim minority of Christendom agree with dispensationalism, and only in the past 200 years at that.
Akzed on March 27, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Glorious Hope? More like glObama dope (the stuff they’ve been smoking).
Most of the atheists that I know are more honest than these people. (So, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear some of the atheists object to this reference.) The SNL “church lady” probably has more accurate terminology.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on March 27, 2008 at 6:10 PM
I just checked out the church website and NOW it makes sense. It’s another not quite Christian Church, like Obama’s United Church of Christ, which also approves of homosexual behavior.
Under its “About Us” TAB it shares:
“We’re gay. We’re straight. We’re still exploring.”
“We’re just like you.”
OH BOY!
sinsing on March 27, 2008 at 6:16 PM
Speak for yourself…I promise, you are not like me…
right2bright on March 27, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Who are they talking to, the American Association of Proctologists?
Akzed on March 27, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Is a non-observant Reform Jew an Orthodox Jew?
Like this church, flavors Reform Judaism allow for the denial of G-d just the same.
Go search for Jackie Mason’s quips about Reform Jews: the rabbi was a gentile, big sign outside the reform temple saying “no Jews allowed”, etc.
Shy Guy on March 27, 2008 at 6:22 PM
A, yeah, no.
I see you’re into replacement theology.
- The Cat
MirCat on March 27, 2008 at 7:02 PM
Uh, what’s your alternative?
Akzed on March 27, 2008 at 7:08 PM
Is God a bigamist?
Akzed on March 27, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Greetings from Jerusalem, the eternal Jewish capital.
Shy Guy on March 27, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Are we all gonna get banned from HA by speaking candidly?
Akzed on March 27, 2008 at 7:28 PM
I guess not. Any takers?
Akzed on March 27, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Oh well, mighta been fun.
“Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God,” Galatians 6:15-16.
Given the context, St. Paul is calling the Church of Jesus Christ “Israel.” So yes, so-called replacement theology is certainly warranted. By another name it is known as Christianity.
Akzed on March 27, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Yeah, they’ll all be unified down where they’re going.
JellyToast on March 27, 2008 at 8:01 PM
Xtianity!
Johan Klaus on March 27, 2008 at 8:06 PM
You Christians are on the fast road to secular obscurity like us Jews :)
Welcome to the party.
Squid Shark on March 27, 2008 at 8:06 PM
Christendom, yes. Christianity? No.
splink on March 27, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Um….for anyone reading, I just wanted to point out that Akzed does not represent any branch of mainline American Christianity, or any form of historical Christianity for that matter. His interpretation is faulty on its face.
Akzed. “The Whore of Babylon” would never apply to Jerusalem. Babylon was an empire that controlled the world (Israel never did) and the city of Rome happens to, well, be built on seven hills (which explains why it’s called the City of Seven Hills) and Jerusalem is not.
“The Whore of Babylon” pretty obviously refers to Rome. Now, what it means by referring to “Rome” (a reborn Roman Empire? The Holy Roman Empire? a new world empire? The Catholic Church?) has been up for debate for millennial.
29Victor on March 27, 2008 at 8:51 PM
Was it hope they nailed to the cross? Was hope dead for only two days before it was resurrected? Not exactly a compelling philosophy. And here I always thought hope couldn’t be killed because humans will carry it in their hearts no matter how dire the circumstances. I guess Boomer is Baal.
JonPrichard on March 27, 2008 at 8:55 PM
I vote for the Old Roman Empire, since I am of the school that Revelation is not Prophesy but Contemporary accounts in Greek code.
Squid Shark on March 27, 2008 at 8:58 PM
Of course, Seattle is also on seven hills, so it could very well be Seattle.
I, for one, wouldn’t be the slightest bit surprised.
29Victor on March 27, 2008 at 9:01 PM
The False Prophet=Starbucks
Squid Shark on March 27, 2008 at 9:08 PM
This Akzed loves to defend “replacement theology.” Maybe he’d like to ask quite a few million (murdered) Jews about their opinion on it…
Anyone who thinks the Babylon of Rev 17 is Jerusalem (?!?), and not Rome as so many scholars have pointed out (and by “Rome”, I don’t mean the Catholic Church), should have his theology examined and purged from the inside out.
newton on March 27, 2008 at 9:13 PM
.
29Victor is just ignorant on this point. In the fourth century, Eusebius cited the view that most events in Revelation were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in his Ecclesiastical History. These preterist views have been around for a LONG time and are held by various Protestant groups and scholars (including some Catholics).
.
It is important to treat the Jewish leaders of the first century (the divorced whores, who are not around any more) separately from the Jewish people. Otherwise one throws out the baby with the bath water. I think Akzed misses something important by using too broad a brush.
Right_of_Attila on March 27, 2008 at 9:15 PM
So it’s Jesus that burns their coffee? I’ve always wondered.
29Victor on March 27, 2008 at 9:16 PM
I thought the Unitarians had been doing this for decades. I went to one once about 15 years ago, and they were calling God, “Holy Mother-Father.” Never mentioned Jesus once. I heard the way to get the Unitarians out of the neighborhood was to burn a question mark on their front lawn.
smellthecoffee on March 27, 2008 at 9:39 PM
Time for me to put by 2 cents in and with the devaluation of the dollar, we all know what that’s worth.
Gang the easiest way to define what sin is, and rtherefore what is wrong is to say sin is putting yourself ahead of God. Remember what the serpent said to Eve ?
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. Genesis 3:5 KJV
Eve bought it and ate as did Adam.
The scriptures associated with Lucifer becoming Satan say that he was blameless until inequity was found in him. Elsewhere In Isaiah it says
Isiaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isaiah 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isaiah 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
So sin is putting oneself ahead of God, and that is exactly what this woman is doing.
Man and fallen angels have both made the same mistake; trying to replace the irreplaceable. Both suffer for that mistake as; assuming no repentance; will this woman and her wayward congregation.
Sorry for the sermon, but I felt it might help explain the woman a bit.
Duncan Khuver on March 27, 2008 at 9:50 PM
BTW, I am a Christian and therefore according to my belief structure, repentance happens when one realizes his own worth (zero), realizes what was done on the cross, accepts the sacrifice and the Savior. Repentance isn’t just saying “whoops. My Bad”.
Just throwing that in ‘cuz some folks ideas of repentance are a little bit different than mine and I did talk about repentance in my previous post.
Duncan Khuver on March 27, 2008 at 9:55 PM
Well this shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone really. Just crazy people being crazy…happens all the time.
blankminde on March 27, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Shame on you. Allah burns all the coffee in this hemisphere.
blankminde on March 27, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Christianity without Christ = Socialism.
p40tiger on March 27, 2008 at 10:03 PM
What seven hills did I mention? To what seven hills (in the Bible) do you refer?
Read Hosea, who was instructed to marry a whore so he could describe how God felt dealing w/Israel’s idolatry. Also talk about Gal. 6:15-16, Glasshoppah.
Akzed on March 27, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Allah works at Starbucks? Is that why he’s so angry all of the time? He should switch to decaf.
29Victor on March 27, 2008 at 10:16 PM
We await your exegetical purgative.
Akzed on March 27, 2008 at 10:16 PM
God created the genome, a beautiful complex sturcture that peices together all life at a microlevel at amazing accuracy and precision, giving rise to such functions as the heart and brain.
Man created a crappy computer that dies after three years because you put pictures on it.
Who do you want running the universe?
Capitana on March 27, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Exegetical: Of or relating to critical explanation or analysis, especially of a text.
Purgative: Tending to cleanse or purge, especially causing evacuation of the bowels.
Analysis resulting in crap? You already supplied that.
And please don’t call yourself “we” unless you’re the Queen of England. You’re not the Queen of England, are you?
29Victor on March 27, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Whoa, there! Revelations was written after AD 90, and Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70. But Rev 17 says that the 7 heads of the beast are 7 kings, 5 of whom have fallen, and on whom is existing now, and one which is yet to come. That would make the “beast” referred to already existing, but Jerusalem was already past.
You can make this fit Rome, but you can’t make it fit Jerusalem.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 27, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Right on.
I haven’t said that we are to equate first century Jews to modern Judaism. We are all Jews in that, “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.”
Please do not construe anything that I say as anti-Semitic, I am not an anti-Semite in any sense. We can debate that ad infinitum or you can take my word for it and we can concentrate on replacement theology, the Christian belief that the Church superceded Israel as the New Israel, Rev. 21:1-4, “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
He. 12:22, “But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly…”
Gal. 4:21-31, “Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 2or it is written:
‘Be glad, O barren woman,
who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud,
you who have no labor pains;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.’
“Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does the Scripture say? ‘Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.’ Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.”
If Isaac was the child of promise, I mean, it’s pretty clear that Jacob/Israel wasn’t.
Akzed on March 27, 2008 at 10:31 PM
We await serious commentary from your quarter.
Akzed on March 27, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Gary DeMar, “Before Jerusalem Fell,” among others, proves that the Revelation was written before AD 70. It’s $16.95.
Akzed on March 27, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Sorry, it’s at http://www.americanvision.com/index.asp?PageAction=PRODSEARCH&txtSearch=before+jerusalem+fell&Page=1
Akzed on March 27, 2008 at 10:37 PM
You’re still not the queen and I seriously commented above.
Your statement about Isaac is nonsensical:
Of course Jacob wasn’t “the child of promise.” No one says that he was. The promise that God gave to Abraham was Genesis 17:19 (convenient that you didn’t cite it):
The promise calls Isaac by name for goodness sakes. Of course Isaac was the child of promise. But that doesn’t prove a darn thing relating to your theology. Coincidentally, the passage also says that God will establish an everlasting covenant with his descendants (maybe that’s why you didn’t cite it?…Just maybe).
This, along with your statement about Jerusalem being the city on seven mountains and your habit of quoting out of context snippets of Revelation so much (it being the easiest book in the Bible to interpret to say just about anything you want it to) and then using ellipsis (…) to replace the context of the verses that you use, reveals such a level of intentional or unintentional ignorance and willingness to misinterpret/distort Scripture to prove you points that I’m not going to waste my time discussing this with you any longer. I’ll just go discuss theology with my dog instead, at least he doesn’t refer to himself as “we.”
Ta Queenie.
29Victor on March 27, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Sure. While I’m at it, I’ll pick up The Da Vinci Code, which proves that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and settled down in a nice suburb of Jerusalem. And The Passover Plot, that book that proves that Jesus was a member of a Gnostic cult, that he was drugged on the cross, never actually died, and just revived from his coma 3 days later.
There are a ton of books giving radical reinterpretations of longstanding and well-accepted early church history. Given that some of these books deny something as basic as the resurrection, as those I mentioned above, it’s no surprise to find one demanding we reinterpret Revelation as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem.
Which, in spite of my considerable sarcasm, is not to say that Revelation could not possibly have been written before the fall of Jerusalem. Revelation does not specifically say when it was written, so it’s a matter of history rather than revelation.
However, Irenaeus, a church “father” who lived less than a 100 years later, identifies Revelation as having been written at the end of the reign of Domitian, which as well after AD 70. It seems to me the principal reason for arguing it was written earlier is to justify changing the interpretation of it. Occam’s razor argues strongly in favor of accepting the word of Irenaeus.
The claim that the “church” replaced the Jews can really be disposed of a lot easier. Just read Romans chapters 9-11. The church did not replace the Jews, but Gentile Christians were “grafted” into the “olive tree” of Jewish Christians, becoming one with them. That is, we didn’t replace the Jews, we became believers with the Jews who were Christians.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 27, 2008 at 11:13 PM
What he said.
29Victor on March 27, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Seems fairly clear to me that Isaac was called the child of promise in contrast to Ishmael, who was the result of a human effort to fulfill God’s promise of a child by mating with a concubine.
This also corresponds spectacularly well with the context of the scripture passage cited, where Paul is contrasting human attempts to attain to God’s righteousness with the promise of God fulfilled in Jesus Christ. In the allegory, the law corresponds to Ishmael, the result of fleshly effort to do God’s work, while grace corresponds to Jesus dying in our place, and accomplishing salvation by God’s effort rather than by man’s effort.
Note that this is not to say that the law of Moses was not given by God, but that it was up to the hearer of the law to keep the law, and therefore the law relied on fleshly effort rather than on the grace of God.
This is put much more clearly in the 8th chapter of Romans
At any rate, since the same contrast of the child of promise and the child of the flesh did not exist with Esau and Jacob, it wouldn’t make much sense to call Jacob the child of promise. So the fact that he is not called a child of promise probably has no great significance.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 27, 2008 at 11:29 PM
I didn’t bring this up. Deal with what I said, por favor.
Akzed on March 27, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Okay troll, I’ll bite.
First of all, three things with regard to Hosea.
1. God instructed Hosea to marry a whore (Gomer) so as to be a visible, object lesson (see the end of Hosea 1:2) to the northern kingdom of Israel (as distinct, at this point in history, from the southern kingdom of Judah). What Hosea the prophet is doing here is symbolically acting out the message God wants the people to receive, similar to the kinds of symbolic performances both Ezekiel and Jeremiah are well known for doing.
2. Gomer (and thus, symbolically the northern kingdom of Israel) is called “a wife of whoredoms”, NOT “the mother of whoredoms” as is Mystery Babylon of Rev. 17-18.
3. Hosea’s prophetic focus is on the northern kingdom of Israel. Jerusalem was the capital of the southern kingdom of Judah. The book of Hosea doesn’t mention Jerusalem a single time, especially not with regards to Hosea’s taking a whore for a wife. Insisting that Hosea is somehow talking about Jerusalem only reveals that you lack the most basic of reading comprehension abilities.
Regarding Galatians 6:15-16:
If you can tell me what Paul’s affirmation of the unprecedented community known as the Church (and ‘Body of Christ’) and Christ’s breaking down of the traditional barriers between Jew/Gentile/slave/free/etc (Gal. 3:28 in specific, but the rest of Galatians 3 for context) refers to Rev. 17’s Mystery Babylon whore and/or Jerusalem being said whore without disregarding or torturing the context, I will be stunned.
Harpazo on March 27, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Hmmm… so Jesus is not the only name given among men under heaven whereby we must be saved? Interesting.
Akzed on March 27, 2008 at 11:32 PM
Gary DeMar is an ardent dominionist and (I presume) amillennialist. His doctorate is in “Christian Intellectual History” (whatever that is). He is NOT a textual scholar. I would no more listen to his opinions on the composition date of any of the Biblical manuscripts than I would listen to the Jesus Seminar’s opinions on the content of the Gospels.
By the way, short of time travel, it is impossible to “prove” when an ancient manuscript was written. However the documented view of Iraneaus (who was trained by Polycarp, the successor to John the Apostle) that Revelation was written near the end of Domitian’s reign carries significant weight given its proximity to the event.
Harpazo on March 27, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Your slapdash/techinique/is/hard/to/follow, but the point is this: get out your concordance and look up harlot and harlotry, e.g. in Ezekiel, and see how it applies the physical analogy to the spiritual reality of idolatry.
Compare Isa. 13:9-10, See, the day of the LORD is coming
—a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger—
to make the land desolate
and destroy the sinners within it.
The stars of heaven and their constellations
will not show their light.
The rising sun will be darkened
and the moon will not give its light.
With Acts 2:16-21, “In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
I will show wonders in the heaven above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
This imagery of the stars and sun and moon going dark (Isaiah 13:10; 34:4; Ezek. 32:7; Joel; 2:10; cf Mt. 24:29) is that of a disintegrating universe, applied to many nations in the OT including Edom, Babylon, Egypt, and Israel/Judah. St. Peter applies it to Israel/Judah in Acts 2, and St. John applies it to Israel/Judah in Rev. 6.
You must agree with the fact that there was no Jewish nation for 2k years, right? What prophecies, OT or NT, in your view, predict the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70? Something so momentous must have been prophesied, no?
I resent being called a troll, and will resist the temptation to respond to you as unkindly as you responded to me. Please let’s deal with facts and resist name calling. Perhaps you might even win me over if you present your views in the spirit of Christian love. I hope to win you over, not with vitrol, but with the patient exegesis of Scripture.
Akzed on March 27, 2008 at 11:56 PM
What’s “interesting” is how you prefer to try to make us play rhetorical whack-a-mole rather than addressing the points brought up to counter your baseless and/or flat-out wrong assertions.
And I’m waiting for you to address my 11:31 response, troll.
Harpazo on March 27, 2008 at 11:56 PM
.
Ken Gentry wrote “Before Jerusalem Fell”, not Demar. It was adapted from his doctoral thesis.
.
.
.
The context in Revelation so closely matches the actual situation (political, religious, historical, architectural, etc.) prior to the destruction of Jerusalem that Revelation would be a pious fraud if it was written after the fall of Jerusalem. In the last century, any book written after the fall of the Iron Curtain that seemed to predict its fall would be a similar fraud — building its credibility by claiming to have predicted a past event.
.
Irenaeus interpreted Israel as the Christian church, and was aware of Romans chapters 9-11. The dating of Revelation is also more complex than just “Iranaeus said it, I believe it, that settles it.”
Right_of_Attila on March 27, 2008 at 11:57 PM
From Geisler and Frank, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, 238.
“…here’s the problem for those who say the New Testament was written after 70—there’s absolutely no mention of the fulfillment of this predicted tragedy anywhere in the New Testament documents. This means most, if not all, of the documents must have been written prior to 70.”
Geisler’s a premil.
Paul Benware, who also holds to a late date for Revelation, describes the above line of reasoning an “argument from silence.”5 But Geisler and Turek do not see it this way, “for the New Testament documents speak of Jerusalem and the temple, or activities associated with them, as if they were still intact at the time of the writings.”6 They cite Revelation 11:1–2 to support this claim.7 Since, according to Geisler and Turek, all the New Testament books were written prior to A.D. 70, then Revelation 11:1–2 must refer to the pre-A.D. 70 temple and not a future rebuilt great-tribulation temple. But this can’t be if Revelation was written around A.D. 95 as Geisler in his critique of The Apocalypse Code contends.
5 Paul Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy: A Comprehensive Approach (Chicago: Moody Press, 2006), 167.
6 Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, 238.
7 Geisler and Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, 425, note 20. Benware contends, “Whether or not there was a temple in existence when John received this vision is not relevant and, therefore, Revelation 11 simply has nothing to do with the dating of the book of Revelation.” (Understanding End Times Prophecy, 167). So much for a “literal interpretation of Revelation.” Benware uses Ezekiel’s measuring the temple as a parallel to John measuring the temple in Revelation 11:1–2. Since the temple Ezekiel measured was a future temple, then it’s most likely that the temple in Revelation is a future temple. There is a problem with this line of reasoning. Ezekiel is not the one measuring the temple; it was a man, and the man was not Ezekiel (Ezek. 40:5–6). The accounts are not content parallel.
You can quibble with DeMar about his degree, but he has done quite a bit with it. When you have published as many books and artickes as he has, perhaps you will gain some standing in this deebate. For now, please just interact with the texts. No one here is angry or anti-Semitic or whatever your bugaboo is, so relax and take your time. And be nice.
Akzed on March 28, 2008 at 12:03 AM
You’re right, Gentry wrote it, not DeMar. I read it and a summary of it that dealt with Nero being the 666 of Rev. 13.
Is “troll” your favorite epithet?
Akzed on March 28, 2008 at 12:07 AM
Akzed on March 27, 2008 at 11:56 PM
You’ve got a heapin’ helpin’ of chutzpa there. You label my very specific, point-by-point response to your references of Hosea and Galatians 3:15-16 as “hard to follow” and “slapdash” — while in the same post you jump completely off-topic [the topics were Hosea and Galatians 3:15-16; do try to keep up with yourself] and quote non-relevant sections of Acts and Isaiah so as to prove some topical point.
I’m getting the impression that you don’t have much formal education in studying the Scriptures because you keep applying the term “exegesis” to your attempts at exposition.
In the spirit of Christian charity, here’s a quick primer on terminology:
Exegesis = what the text actually says, no more or less. Requires knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic vocabulary and grammar as needed. Requires passages to be placed in their proper textual, narrative, and/or thematic contexts.
Exposition = what the meaning of the text is or may be with regard to the greater contexts (narrative, thematic, theological, typological, etc) of the Bible.
Troll = person who refuses to engage in substantive debate/dialogue; ignores points made against him; often illogical, complains loudly when pwned
Harpazo on March 28, 2008 at 12:12 AM
Only when it’s appropriate.
Harpazo on March 28, 2008 at 12:13 AM
Not to mention that Rev. 1:1 refers to events that must “shortly come to pass.” Who are “those who pierced him.” 1:7, and is it more likely that they would be alive in AD 70 or AD 96 to see Him? See also Mt. 23:36; 34:34.
If you call me names again it is an admission that your quiver is empty.
Akzed on March 28, 2008 at 12:14 AM
I graduated with honors from seminary, won the theology prize for my class, and pastored for nineteen years. Ok?
Let’s finish this tomorrow, shall we my friend? I am seeing double now, and will be in a better frame of mind tomorrow in order to effectively spill your guts on your shoes, theologically speaking of course. Good night, and please pardon the split infinitive.
Akzed on March 28, 2008 at 12:19 AM
Premil or not, Norm Geisler’s mistaken. Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 all record Jesus’ prediction that the Temple would be totally destroyed. That’s at least (I don’t remember if other texts reference it) 11% (3 of 27) that reference/predict the destruction of the Temple.
Since when has publishing quantity been the font of truth and authority? The world is flooded with books and articles whose content is utter dreck.
And if you want to quibble about credentials, I’ve got two degrees in Theology and I’m working on a third in Biblical Studies. What’re your qualifications?
I’ve been trying since my first post. You’re the one who skewed off topic. I would be more than happy to talk about Hosea, Galatians 3, and Revelation 17.
Harpazo on March 28, 2008 at 12:26 AM
Non sequitur. I didn’t say that, and what I did say didn’t imply it.
But if you really want to talk about church history, surely you’re aware that the first church was at Jerusalem, the first Christians were Jews, Jesus himself was a Jew after the flesh, all the apostles were Jews, and the first Gentiles converted were added to a Jewish church.
Grafted in, you might say.
On top of this, the early churches became followers of the churches that were in Judea, and the Apostle to the Gentiles was … a Jew, who said his “heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel” was “that they would be saved.” And the apostle who said there was only one name under heaven given among men that they might be saved was a Jew.
There were at least 4 common uses for the word, “Jews” in the Bible.
1) the Jewish race
2) the Jewish religion
3) the Jewish nation
4) the Jewish leaders
All the early Christians were Jews — members of the Jewish race. They were there first. We were added to them.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 28, 2008 at 12:31 AM
You’re still not addressing the texts. You’re quoting and citing texts that are, at best, only loosely connected by a topical thread.
That is not exegesis. It’s not even exposition.
But, since you don’t want to talk about the first texts (Hosea and Galatians 3:15) you brought up, I’ll meet you where you are. You mentioned Revelation 1:1 (and may we PLEASE pick a text and stick with it for once?).
The Greek phrase in Rev. 1:1 that is translated “shortly” is ἐν τάχει. The key word here is τάχει, the root of which is τάχος, which is the same root from which we get the English word “tachometer”. A better rendering of the part of Rev. 1:1 that you quoted would be “things which must rapidly[or, suddenly] come to pass”.
The use of the Greek τάχος in the text indicates that the events that are about to be revealed (the rest of the book) will all occur swiftly once they begin.
Your move.
Harpazo on March 28, 2008 at 12:37 AM
I’m not calling you names. I am applying a label to you – troll – which is appropriate on an internet forum, particularly since I defined my terminology for you in my 12:12 post.
When you cease to behave like a troll (and start debating with intellectual honestly and focus), I will no longer be justified in labelling you thusly.
And I graduated magna cum laude from a top-tier university, am a member of several theology honor societies, and have been published in an internationally-read theology journal. But who cares?
Neither your background or mine is a barrier to errors — like trying to claim that a loose topical collection of verses counts as an exegetical study. I wasn’t trying to insult your intelligence or your education, but you are simply not doing exegesis.
If you want to talk text, let’s talk text (STILL waiting to talk about Hosea and Galatians!). But simply owning a concordance does not make you an exegete; it makes you a person with a concordance.
Harpazo on March 28, 2008 at 12:52 AM
Harpazo I think Proverbs 18:2 pretty well sums up your point here (as does 18:6 :) ). There is no point in this discussion, which is why I dropped out. Proverbs 23:9.
29Victor on March 28, 2008 at 1:09 AM
I don’t think the Achoress got it quite right.
One of the big reasons that Jesus the Christ and God, big “g” are on the down swing is because Darwinism-evolutionism is pushed in our nation in science class in movies, in the media, etc., while much of it is baloney, and goes unchallenged, and, when it does go challenged, or when someone disagrees, having the bully pulpit, those who oppose it are quickly marginalized and painted as insane flat earthers and Christian fanatics who don’t know science and who believe in an invisible friend, just like Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and so on.
Also, it is easier to push abortion, Euthanasia, exploitation of humans via such avenues as Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and pushing radical behaviorism, such as homosexuality, lesbianism, transsexualism, and pedophilia to the point of moral equivalency with normal behavior when Jesus the Christ and God are no longer an issue.
William2006 on March 28, 2008 at 7:14 AM
Your error is in focusing on the Jews as a race. No one has said that the gentiles have taken the racial primacy that the Jews formerly had. It was never based on race but covenant, and now the middle wall of partition has been broken down, and the Church includes all nations and tongues and peoples as the new temple/city of God. Jews are welcome all the way into the new temple/city, so are Irish, Arabs, Eskimos, etc.
You would recognize this as a change, right? The next step in the unfolding of redemptive history, right? A larger and more expansive kingdom (the Church) superceded another (Jerusalem-centered Israel).
Akzed on March 28, 2008 at 8:40 AM
[b]*FACEDESK*[/b]
Are we as a nation trying to test God’s infinite mercy to it’s limit?!?
Dark-Star on March 28, 2008 at 8:43 AM
Once they begin?! Taxei is also used at Luke 18:8; Acts 12:7; 22:18; 25:4; Rom. 16:20; Rev. 22:6.
Luke 18:8, “I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?”
Acts 12:7, “He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. ‘Quick, get up!’ he said, and the chains fell off Peter’s wrists.”
Acts 22:18,”’Quick!’ he said to me. ‘Leave Jerusalem immediately, because they will not accept your testimony about me.’”
Acts 25:4, “Festus answered, ‘Paul is being held at Caesarea, and I myself am going there soon.’”
Ro. 16:20, “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.
The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.” (Cf. 1:18, where Paul says judgment has already begun.)
Rev.22:6, “The angel said to me, ‘These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.’”
Now, given that Jesus said, “This generation shall not pass until all these things take place,” Mt.23:36; 24:34, and in He said, “When you see armies surrounding Jerusalem,” isn’t it reasonable to assume that the things that were predicted to happen shortly, happened shortly? This generation allows for a period of say, forty years, as in AD 33–70. To say that taxei has no reference to the commencement of these events, only to the speed of events once they commence, is to be governed by one’s preconceived notions.
Akzed on March 28, 2008 at 8:58 AM
I wasn’t bragging, you said that I obviously had no theological training because I disagreed with you so I referenced my CV.
I do have a concordance somewhere.
As for Hosea: God told him to take a whore for a wife as an analogy for what it was like to be cheated on by the idolatrous nation. God kept taking Israel back and forgiving over and over, so He wanted Hosea to do the same, even to purchase her from a slave auction, etc.
Revelation is God’s writ of divorce against Jerusalem. Jerusalem had become Babylon, the venerable enemy of God and His people, by persecuting the Church. There came an end to God’s patience, and so He took a new Bride, the Church. This is certainly no novel view. Dispensationalism is novel, but this ain’t.
Akzed on March 28, 2008 at 9:08 AM
So what is it about Galatians that you wanted to discuss? You might like to begin by explaining Gal. 6:15-16 in the general context. Is Paul calling the Church “the Israel of God” or not?
As for the bearing of this twist in the thread to its original intent, taking Jesus out of Easter is on the same path as trying to maintain that there are two peoples of God, only the former is a little further down the path.
Akzed on March 28, 2008 at 9:17 AM
So you dropped out, except to quote scripture as a collection of insults?
What a troll!
Claiming to show Christian charity, you ARE the definition of a troll. Insisting that Akzed interact with your quotes on your terms, you ignore my arguments on dating Revelation before 70 AD.
(1)If Revelation would be a fraudulent document if written as prophecy after the events of AD 70, and
(2) Eusebius noted an “ancient view” that events in Revelation were fulfilled in AD 70.
.
In comments on an article about the heretical UCC “church”, it is more than odd for Harpazo to insist that someone stick to HIS topic — especially when he was pwned.
.
Akzed made some very minor errors (which is OK in a casual forum), but Revelation written before AD 70 would support a divorce of the Jewish religious elites in Jerusalem (and not a rejection of Jewish people, per se). Harpazo notes that non-Jews were grafted into the Church, which does NOTHING to disprove the position Akzed takes on a divorce of the Jewish religious leaders around AD 70.
.
The terms dominionist and dominion theology are used in premil circles as an insult to a group they disagree with – the term is not used by any group about itself. Premils often confuse postmillenialists (like Gary Demar) with amillennialists, out of ignorance born a habit of dismissing those with whom they disagree.
.
Rather than interact with that thread, I’ll change the subject to a Coptic priest who debates Muslims in Arabic on satellite TV and the internet. He does good work and is persuading millions to convert to Christianity.
An article about ‘Islam’s Public Enemy #1′ in NRO has a link to the ministry of father Zakira Botros.
.
I choose to think about things that are noble, like the way Father Zakira debates Islam. In fact, the NRO article belongs on the Hot Air home page headlines, IMO.
Right_of_Attila on March 28, 2008 at 10:31 AM
In fairness to Harpo, he might not be able to access his computer at the moment. He might chime in later. I hope so.
Akzed on March 28, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Others, such as Clement, Philo, and Origen, would agree with Tillich.
deesine on March 28, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Origen castrated himself. Was he trying to create a religious experience of immediacy?
.
Why anyone would let Paul Tillich define the terms of their religious experience is even an even more odd choice.
Right_of_Attila on March 28, 2008 at 12:48 PM
“In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.”
Thomas Jefferson
menoname on March 28, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Actually, the song says, “Christ the Lord is Risen Today,” not “Jesus Christ is Risen Today.”
BigD on March 28, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Gee, is it a coincidence that this is in a church with a female Rev? Could it be that liberals don’t understand Christianity, they just use it when it is convenient???
Spartacus on March 28, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Just who is this pastor: a fan of the late Flip Wilson???
Are the sermons a reprise of Flip Wilson’s satirization of this kind of thing in his “Church of What’s Happening Now” skits?
Someone ought to tell this gal that Flip was kidding!!! …and he wasn’t really a minister!
landlines on March 28, 2008 at 2:13 PM
I don’t know where that presumption comes from. I’m not sure that they would have appreciated Tillich’s
immense pornography collectionchoice of books either.Akzed on March 28, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Offthread, but I’m not sure where else to note this…
Pope Benedict is visiting the U.S. in April. In NY, his itinerary includes Ground Zero. Wonder if he’ll have anything interesting to say about Islamic terrorism?
cs89 on March 28, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Generally yes, but I’ve seen it printed the other way as well.
vonspringer on March 28, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Is this what you all do? Just abuse and use Scripture to prove what you want to believe?
I selected Scriptures that teach, that give instruction and wisdom that I am supposed to live by. I let Scripture do the speaking and I listen, no the other way around.
You have no interest in listening to what the Bible clearly says, and (when in a conversation with someone like that) Scripture clearly states that it is best to bow out.
That’s what I did, and I cited the Scriptures that told me to.
You’re the showing yourself to be a fool,
Do you find that insulting? I really don’t care. Do you feel that I insulted you in front of the people on this thread? Good:
You espouse and proclaim a heresy, as a Christian it’s my job to point that out, but it’s not my job to talk you out of it or talk to you about it at all.
If anyone here would like to learn about the heresy of Replacement Theology, here’s a good website:
http://therefinersfire.org/replacement_theology.htm
29Victor on March 28, 2008 at 6:24 PM
So the entire church was heretical for q1800 years? Huh.
Akzed on March 28, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Fixed that. Last of all they can’t call themselves Christian when they give up god. Christ’s followers were first called Christians and Antioch. The word Christain actually means Christ-like. As pointed out by scripture in some earlier posts if we don’t do it His way we end up in hell. Even if we follow what some bishop, pastor, or “reverend” says. There are few congregations out there who’s members actually live how Christ would have us. That’s whay we get that warning about those who did many things in his name. We have to be sure, otherwise…
boomer on March 28, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Read the first part carefully, “…the death of Jesus…” is mentioned but not the resurrection of Jesus. They deny the Resurrection and thus Christ. These folks are many things, but Christian is not one of them. They are precisely the type John warned us about in 1 John and 2 John. The more things change…..
To these and to all such as these Christians have a response: CHRISTOS ANESTEI!!! CHRIST HAS RISEN!!!
Bubba Redneck on March 29, 2008 at 2:07 AM
I listed 4 different uses of the word Jews, one of which had to do with race, to counter the false idea that “Jewish Christian” was some sort of oxymoron. So where does this idea come from that I am “focusing on the Jews as a race?”
Obviously, God did not convert Gentile Christians into the Jewish race, but rather joined us into one church. Still, we were added to them, who were the original heirs of the promises of God.
But God is not finished with Israel yet, so the idea that the churches of God replaced Israel is false. Not only that, but it treads dangerously close to the heresy warned against in Revelation 2:9 “… I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.” and Revelations 3:9 ” Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie…”
The exact role of the Jews in prophecy is harder to define, but the idea that God “divorced” the Jews is both harmful and false. In fact, loving the Jews is a basic duty of all Christians, and a failure to do so is a red flag.
Having said that, I’m certainly not accusing you of hating the Jews.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 29, 2008 at 2:58 AM
.
Let’s see the world-according-to-29Victor:
* Listing verses that only call someone a fool is brilliant argumentation and wisdom.
* The entire Christian church has been heretical since Nicaea, until his group figured it all out.
.
Here is a web site that lists verses which show a clear pattern in Scripture:
The Church is Israel Now
.
Names applied to Israel are also applied to the Christian church. The difference is that there are usually other verses where unfaithful Israel is told the name does not apply to them.
.
Denying the possibility that part of Israel was divorced does not affirm God’s promises to the Jewish people. It does make would-be heresy hunters display what fools they are.
.
.
Now for some of the errors of “The Error of Replacement Theology”:
- It is a strawman attack that falsely assumes an attempt to exclude Jews from covenant promises.
- The ‘history’ ignores Jewish persecution of Christians before Constantine, including changes to temple liturgy that cursed all followers of Christ (the “Birkat HaManim”). [I wonder why they did't show up to worship in temple on the Sabbath after that...] Calling this “religious and social differences” seems inadequate.
- Refiner’s Fire pushes an end times view that is no friend of the Jewish people. Expecting a large fraction of Jews to be killed in Israel is not helpful. During the 1930s, some premillennialists argued that it was the “time of Jacob’s trouble” and to oppose Hitler might be to oppose God’s plans. Jesus said you will know people by their works. Obviously this is not all premils, but they have odd views that can create moral blind spots.
.
The point of this criticism is not to dwell on the past in ways unflattering to Jews. It is that the one-sided lawyer’s brief at RF web site is not balanced history, but it can be useful to manipulate the weak-mined (i.e., 29Victor).
.
The covenants and promises have a proper place, as I started to learn in Hebrew school as a boy.
Feel free to call me anti-semitic, 29Vicious fool.
Right_of_Attila on March 29, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Now, I’m not “endorsing” the following, just sharing it:
A friend of mine asked me how you write the number “6″ in Roman Numerals. I replied “VI”. He said, “write that down three times in a row.” So I wrote “VIVIVI” on a piece of paper. Then he added three small lines to the paper and turned the writing into “WWW”. His point was that “WWW” could be “666″. While it is true that there has already been at least one case of someone being paid advertising money to have a web site tatooed on their forehead (WWW.whatever.com), I’m not ready to take that plunge and believe that the “mark of the beast” is a URL tatooed on your forehead. I told my friend that I believe “666″ in Roman Numerals would be “DCLXVI”.
Red Pill on March 29, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »