ECT The NT on Isaiah 40-66
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
That's true.
I think some do it because they are desperate to find some hidden enlightenment they think is special to make them "feel" like they have some sort of divine connection.
That kind of desire makes it easier for them to fall into the trap of creating dots to connect.
And once it starts, they keep looking for more dots to create.
musterion
Well-known member
For me, that was more or less true. The root problem was that I did not see the distinctive ministry of Paul. I'd never even heard of that until I ran across MADs at John Ankerberg's old board. Before then, I would often borrow my pastor's cherished (by him) MacArthur commentary series. Couldn't wait to buy MacArthur's study Bible when it came out (since discarded). Would read anything by anyone I could get my hands on...someone, somewhere, had to be able to help me.
Why?
Because while I was convinced the Bible was God's Word, therefore true, the Bible did not make sense. I knew there had to be a Big Picture, which would tell me where I fit in, but I could not see it.
I was told on every side that Christ's teachings in the four Gospels were the pattern for my life. I could not begin to live up to them and I knew it.
I was told that to know Christ, read the Gospels. I could not relate to Him or His teachings and deep down that terrified me.
I was told early Acts was the essential model for perfect church life and powerful evangelism. They all pretended this was true but I was acquainted with no one who mirrored what I read in Acts (Pentecostals claimed to but lie).
I was told the apostle Paul was simply sent by God as division of labor (wrong) and that his doctrine was merely an expansion and explanation of what had been revealed before (wrong).
I was told in my desperate ignorance to just keep claiming James 1:5 in prayer and that God would soon give me light. Never happened, so even more doubt resulted.
And I slowly discovered something that still disturbs me: the more money/material comfort people had, the more they could insulate themselves from the consequences of their doctrinal inconsistency. Or distract themselves from it. Or justify it, somehow. Especially if they were in any form of paid ministry -- the fact that they could raise support from donors or a salary milked from a congregation was the evidence they'd been "called." Therefore, whatever they taught HAD to be true because they'd been "called."
The rest just drifted along, doing whatever they were told by those in the ministry (a priesthood, it amounted to) or they eventually bailed because NOTHING WORKED THE WAY THE BIBLE SAYS * FOR ANYBODY I KNEW, WHETHER THEY ADMITTED IT OR NOT (and I was pretty much the only one I knew who would).
Yet despite all that, I was still hungry enough to be convinced the Bible HAD to be true but it wasn't making ANY sense for me nor could I see any real practical value in it. I had quit reading it. Instead I focused on the empty field of regurgitated apologetics for its own sake, and occupied my time arguing from that point.
And it left me empty. I remember once asking God to please show me what and where Biblical truth is. I believe He answered that prayer by letting me get just desperate enough to buy into IFB, but still open enough to seriously challenge MAD and honest enough to consider being changed by it if that's where it led me. And that's what happened.
Sorry to ramble.
* Which is why almost every church grows more and more worldly and useless. They can't live up to what they pretend the model is and the downhill slide is inevitable, so they justify it -- sanctify it -- with increasing levels of emotionalism and "praise God" music, and less and less hard doctrine.
Why?
Because while I was convinced the Bible was God's Word, therefore true, the Bible did not make sense. I knew there had to be a Big Picture, which would tell me where I fit in, but I could not see it.
I was told on every side that Christ's teachings in the four Gospels were the pattern for my life. I could not begin to live up to them and I knew it.
I was told that to know Christ, read the Gospels. I could not relate to Him or His teachings and deep down that terrified me.
I was told early Acts was the essential model for perfect church life and powerful evangelism. They all pretended this was true but I was acquainted with no one who mirrored what I read in Acts (Pentecostals claimed to but lie).
I was told the apostle Paul was simply sent by God as division of labor (wrong) and that his doctrine was merely an expansion and explanation of what had been revealed before (wrong).
I was told in my desperate ignorance to just keep claiming James 1:5 in prayer and that God would soon give me light. Never happened, so even more doubt resulted.
And I slowly discovered something that still disturbs me: the more money/material comfort people had, the more they could insulate themselves from the consequences of their doctrinal inconsistency. Or distract themselves from it. Or justify it, somehow. Especially if they were in any form of paid ministry -- the fact that they could raise support from donors or a salary milked from a congregation was the evidence they'd been "called." Therefore, whatever they taught HAD to be true because they'd been "called."
The rest just drifted along, doing whatever they were told by those in the ministry (a priesthood, it amounted to) or they eventually bailed because NOTHING WORKED THE WAY THE BIBLE SAYS * FOR ANYBODY I KNEW, WHETHER THEY ADMITTED IT OR NOT (and I was pretty much the only one I knew who would).
Yet despite all that, I was still hungry enough to be convinced the Bible HAD to be true but it wasn't making ANY sense for me nor could I see any real practical value in it. I had quit reading it. Instead I focused on the empty field of regurgitated apologetics for its own sake, and occupied my time arguing from that point.
And it left me empty. I remember once asking God to please show me what and where Biblical truth is. I believe He answered that prayer by letting me get just desperate enough to buy into IFB, but still open enough to seriously challenge MAD and honest enough to consider being changed by it if that's where it led me. And that's what happened.
Sorry to ramble.
* Which is why almost every church grows more and more worldly and useless. They can't live up to what they pretend the model is and the downhill slide is inevitable, so they justify it -- sanctify it -- with increasing levels of emotionalism and "praise God" music, and less and less hard doctrine.
Last edited:
Interplanner
Well-known member
What does it have to do with anything? What is IFB?
You might try dealing with the issue at hand, which is whether Judaism is correct in how it handles 40-66 and in its scorn upon those who think it is about Christ.
musterion
Well-known member
I was responding to a point Tam raised. Report it and have it removed.
Interplanner
Well-known member
But if you are saying you finally found 'the light' when you heard D'ism, well, I found just the opposite to be the case. By the inclusion of the Gentiles in the promise that was given since Gen 12, I found the whole Bible unified. Plus that was now the mission, my mission. Plus that was the same person promised in 1-11.
It's a little hard to understand what you found that was so defining when D'ism is like a poorly made puzzle with instructions in 1950s Chinese.
It's a little hard to understand what you found that was so defining when D'ism is like a poorly made puzzle with instructions in 1950s Chinese.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Gentiles were always included in the Gen 12 promise, through Israel. But Israel fell. Welcome to MAD.
"But Israel fell?"
The non-Dispy can, and has, easily taken such wording, as an assertion that "God was caught off guard" or that "God had to come up with a plan B."
Neither of which is the case.
You might want to consider how your intended audience might take such wording, before posting (or not).
Nevertheless, the less hindrance to their understanding on our part; the better, 1 Cor. 14:7, 8.
Rom. 5:8
Prov. 27:17
Acts 17:11,12
Yeppers.
Prophesy
Isaiah 60:3 KJV
(3) And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.
Compared to:
Mystery
Romans 11:11-12 KJV
(11) I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
(12) Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Interplanner
Well-known member
OK the thy rising is Christ, of course. I'm glad you finally have someone saying that an outreach to the nations was still going on, because it is behind the scenes in many OT passages. I still have no idea why this is called mid-Acts D'ism, when the core idea of D'ism is that there are two separate programs, operating systems.
There always was going to be a suffering by Christ, but may be the details of HOW he suffered were up for variation until the last moment. For ex., did 'cut off' in Dan 9 mean the exact same thing by the time it took place 490 years later...
You must think the Gentiles were all going to gather in Judea, because of the specific demarcations of the land boundaries.
The only thing God did differently with Israel, which I never find correctly expressed by D'ism, is that the Law was a child-trainer, a governess, a shadow of the reality. To D'ism it was entirely legitimate in its own right, and that's why they think so much of the land as a "eternal" benefit when this world is to be unmade for the NHNE which is not even the same kind of corporeality.
So I would not blow so many trumpets as STP does as though MAD was any less the mental contrivance that it has been showing itself to be all along.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Isaiah 60
Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.
2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.
3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.
Israel rises.
So, you're wrong again, Great Learned Unlearned One.
Interplanner
Well-known member
the case is just the opposite. The 'dots' are OT passages quoted by the NT, they are also those 'self-organizing' NT chapters instead of D'ist bilge:
Gal 3-4, Rom 4, 9-11, 15, Eph 2-3, Acts 13 (sermon), 26 (defense statement), 2-3.
Of course people who think the blood of Jesus and the body of Jesus are as connected as Picasso is to Mary the mother of Jesus--well, it's pretty hopeless what they will conclude.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Is 40-66 selections quoted in descending frequency
using the list created by United Bible Society and Metzger's Greek text
which shows direct quotes in bold
12X
53:7
Jn 1:29, Mt 26:63, 27:12, 27:14, Mk 14:60-61, 15:4-5, I Cor 5:7, I Pet 2:23, Rev 5:6, 12, 13:8
No surprise it would be from ch 53.
Jn 1: 'takes away' is from v12, but 'like a lamb' is here in v7; expressed by John B
The next group of these are about the silence of Christ during the trial.
The I Cor 5 is an allusion, as much as to Ex 12 and 13.
I Pet 2 is 2 specific lines
The Rev 13 has sometimes been trans to attach the writing of the names at the foundation of the world, instead of to the Lamb. All the Rev uses listed here are allusion.
6X
53:12
Mt 27:38, Lk 22:37, 23:33, 23:34, Heb 9:28, I Pet 2:24
Mt 27 and all synoptics: punished with insurrectionists. The term is 'lestai' which is not the usual thief. He's doing it to support a political effort--the zealots. The temple had become a den of 'lestai.' So he was punished with those who made the biggest mistake in Israel's history, and were criminals doing so. Even though it was them he had tried to change, rescue.
Heb 9: he took away sins once for all time
I Pet 2: 'ananegko' is here again--bearing sin, then his lashings that heal us, but from 53:5
using the list created by United Bible Society and Metzger's Greek text
which shows direct quotes in bold
12X
53:7
Jn 1:29, Mt 26:63, 27:12, 27:14, Mk 14:60-61, 15:4-5, I Cor 5:7, I Pet 2:23, Rev 5:6, 12, 13:8
No surprise it would be from ch 53.
Jn 1: 'takes away' is from v12, but 'like a lamb' is here in v7; expressed by John B
The next group of these are about the silence of Christ during the trial.
The I Cor 5 is an allusion, as much as to Ex 12 and 13.
I Pet 2 is 2 specific lines
The Rev 13 has sometimes been trans to attach the writing of the names at the foundation of the world, instead of to the Lamb. All the Rev uses listed here are allusion.
6X
53:12
Mt 27:38, Lk 22:37, 23:33, 23:34, Heb 9:28, I Pet 2:24
Mt 27 and all synoptics: punished with insurrectionists. The term is 'lestai' which is not the usual thief. He's doing it to support a political effort--the zealots. The temple had become a den of 'lestai.' So he was punished with those who made the biggest mistake in Israel's history, and were criminals doing so. Even though it was them he had tried to change, rescue.
Heb 9: he took away sins once for all time
I Pet 2: 'ananegko' is here again--bearing sin, then his lashings that heal us, but from 53:5
As with northwye's long winded version of your above - none of that is how any of that is studied out.
Fool - that approach only ends up leaving the sense of things at the mercy of whatever it's particular subscriber to said approach ends up concluding any one word, phrase, and or passage, or another is talking "about."
This is why the typical "Greek" based "MAD" often fails to prove his point through that approach.
Often succeeds instead, at proving his "findings" are obviously nothing more that what he was taught, and that he now wastes inordinate amounts of time seeking to prove the Greek supposedly supports.
I once walked out on a supposed "Mid-Acts Based Bible Study" where that approach was ever the OVER relied on approach.
Your same approach...is full of holes and is old hat, IP.
Regardless of school of thought, said approach is easily adaptable to the supposed "findings" and assertions of any school.
Forty plus years and yet you very obviously still remain at the newbie starting gate; still waiting for that gun signalimn the start of an actual Bible study, to go off.
Boring. Boring. Boring. Change the channel, already.
Better yet, turn the darn thing off and pick up that Gideon - it's what it was placed in that drawer for, to begin with.
Rom. 5:8
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
From which commentary did you lift this?
Interplanner
Well-known member
Correction on once for all in heb 9 and Jude. Heb 9:28 has 'hapax prosenechtheis' suffered once as a sacrifice; it is Jude 3 that has 'hapax paradotheise' or once delivered. A 'hapax legomena' is an expression that is only used once.
Interplanner
Well-known member
[B]6X
Is 49:2
Eph 6:17, Heb 4:12, Rev 1:16, 2:12, 2:16, 19:15
Eph 6:17: The Servant's speech is a sharp sword
Heb 4:12: the word is a sharp sword
Rev 1:16: the Christ vision; his mouth is a sharp sword
2:12: the message from He who has the sharp two edged sword
2:16: Christ will defeat certain enemies with the sword
19:15: the sharp sword will defeat the nations
5X
Isaiah 49:6, 52:7, 61:6
49:6
Lk 2:32: Christ is salvation and a light that reveals God's way to the nations, and is the glory of Israel
Jn 8:12; 9:5: the light of the world. By saying this while doing a healing, he means the same as Heb 1 about being the final revelation of God to the world.
Acts 13:47: no other Isaiah location is referenced so it's 49:6. The glory of Israel is now 'the conveyance of salvation to the ends of the earth.' It is exactly how the LXX left it (the authorized Greek edition completed in the inter-testament period). What Lk 2 said was about Christ was now true of his believers/speakers.
Acts 26:23: again, the believer in Christ automatically does what Christ did as light to the nations. Notice that 42:6 is now referenced as source expressions by ABS/Metzger. That's where Christ is kept as a covenant for the people, which may just mean Israel's mission work that is coming. Israel can be what God wants it to be in Christ's mission, which means it must be in Christ, the individuals must be in Christ. Also there is a sort of jamming here: the resurrected-from-the-dead-light. That is what is taken to the nations.
Is 49:2
Eph 6:17, Heb 4:12, Rev 1:16, 2:12, 2:16, 19:15
Eph 6:17: The Servant's speech is a sharp sword
Heb 4:12: the word is a sharp sword
Rev 1:16: the Christ vision; his mouth is a sharp sword
2:12: the message from He who has the sharp two edged sword
2:16: Christ will defeat certain enemies with the sword
19:15: the sharp sword will defeat the nations
5X
Isaiah 49:6, 52:7, 61:6
49:6
Lk 2:32: Christ is salvation and a light that reveals God's way to the nations, and is the glory of Israel
Jn 8:12; 9:5: the light of the world. By saying this while doing a healing, he means the same as Heb 1 about being the final revelation of God to the world.
Acts 13:47: no other Isaiah location is referenced so it's 49:6. The glory of Israel is now 'the conveyance of salvation to the ends of the earth.' It is exactly how the LXX left it (the authorized Greek edition completed in the inter-testament period). What Lk 2 said was about Christ was now true of his believers/speakers.
Acts 26:23: again, the believer in Christ automatically does what Christ did as light to the nations. Notice that 42:6 is now referenced as source expressions by ABS/Metzger. That's where Christ is kept as a covenant for the people, which may just mean Israel's mission work that is coming. Israel can be what God wants it to be in Christ's mission, which means it must be in Christ, the individuals must be in Christ. Also there is a sort of jamming here: the resurrected-from-the-dead-light. That is what is taken to the nations.
Last edited:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:chuckle: