Posted on 10/24/2007 8:18:14 AM PDT by topcat54
***No he didn’t. Jesus had just left from his first visit at His Ascension in 30 AD. So when did He return??? Did his second coming [return] occur between 30 AD and 50 AD??? Come on — you’re pullin’ our legs.***
Like I said, you are stuck in a Dispensational mind fog. The “I will return” spoken by the prophet WAS the Incarnation of the Lord. The Second coming isn’t even mentioned in the text. The rebuilding of the tabernacle WAS the rebuilding of the temple which only took 3 days.
The reason James cites Amos is specifically because the coming of the nations was already happening as testified by Peter a few verses earlier.
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.There is only one root; Christ. There is only one vine; Israel. We are grafted into her. For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.
This can't be said often enough. All prophecy, all prophets, all Scripture point to Jesus Christ in whom "all fulness dwells" (Col. 1:19).
Christ is the third temple.
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." -- Galatians 3:8
Somehow, I don't think he realized that he was poo-pooing a direct Scripture reference. I also don't think he remembers these words of the Lord in Acts concerning Paul....
And He said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’
So then the Incarnation was a "return" visit??? What does that word "return" mean to you???
Yes, the Incarnation was a returning of the LORD to his people. This is why he was called Imanuel, God with US. Zacharias, the father of John, filled with the Holy Spirit prophesies:
“Blessed is the Lord God of Israel, For He has visited and redeemed His people, And has raised up a horn of salvation for us In the house of His servant David, As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, Who have been since the world began,....”
Please note that Zacharias speaks as a fact that God has visited AND redeemed his people. Note that this visitation by God is not the first. Note that this particular visitation is spoken of about the Incarnation of the Lord. Note that it spoken that the redemption of HIS people will be accomplished with certaintity.
And so all Israel will be saved.
Then fear came upon all, and they glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has risen up among us”; and, “God has visited His people.”
Tell that to James and Peter. They were ones who took Amos 9 and applied it to contemporary events in their day.Maybe they were not "literalists". Maybe they saw the true spiritual fulfillment of the prophecies.
Doesn't matter. I had a dispensationalist tell me it didn't matter how Jesus, the gospel writers, Paul, James, Peter, Jude and whoever wrote Hebrews interpreted the OT, that what mattered was how it would have been interpreted by the original audience.
Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.
No he does not. He separates those two things with the words: "After this I will return". The habitation of David won't be rebuilt until He returns.
What does the word "this" refer to in the passage here???
"Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written; After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things." [Acts 15]
You said that you use the literal-grammatical method of scripture interpretation. Well than tell us what words that the word "this" is referring to in the above passsage.
Nobody "left behind" to run the TBN transmitter and keep the satellites in orbit.
[LOL]
I don't see the word "return" in that verse anywhere. Did I miss it???
All I see is a first visit, not a revisit.
If this Incarnation was his return visit, then when was his first visit???
The part that you seem to be missing is the fact that James links the calling of the gentiles what was happening in that day with the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David. He explicitly says "And I will set it up; So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,"
Okay...Now I get it...Now I understand how you come to arrive at your conclusion of the meaning of the scripture...
You leave important words out, you add words to the scripture and then when you post, you pretend you are quoting the scripture...And then you refuse to discuss the words that you added or left out...
Paul spoke of you people that corrupt the word of God...
Weren't you the one who questioned Paul's plain words in Galatians 3 about Jesus Christ being the Seed (singular) and all the promises were made to Him?
Wasn't debating any such thing...
I was making light of the fact that the word seed can be used as plural as well as singular when it was suggested that seed means singular and was used as the basis for the argument...
Yep, sure you were.
Are you going to answer the question at Post #827 or is the question too hard for you???
The context of Amos 9 (from which James was quoting) was God's judgment against Israel and the division of the Kingdom. From what James tells the us promise to Israel was that God would send a Redeemer to the people and His reign would be so glorious that His salvation would extend even to the gentiles.
As one commentator puts it:
It is no wonder then that the Prophets, after having prophesied of the destruction of the people, such as happened after the two kingdoms were abolished, should recall the minds of the faithful to the Messiah; for except God had gathered the Church under one head, there would have been no hope. This is, therefore, the order which Amos now observes.And another:
To him to whom all the prophets bear witness this prophet, here in the close, bears his testimony, and speaks of that day, those days that shall come, in which God will do great things for his church, by the setting up of the kingdom of the Messiah, for the rejecting of which the rejection of the Jews was foretold in the foregoing verses. The promise here is said to agree to the planting of the Christian church, and in that to be fulfilled, Acts 15:15–17.These views are consistent with what I have been saying, that when James interprets Amos’ "in that day" by "after this" he is making plain that the days promised in Amos have arrived. The "this" therefore must represent the divine judgment upon Israel, but "after this" God was faith in delivering His people by the coming of Messiah. His salvation extends so far that even the gentiles would be blessed.
Thanks for the ping and link!
Have been through the poasts since my last reading to the end of the thread as of a few moments ago.
It’s increasingly clear that the Replacementarians have at least an unwillingness and probably INCAPACITY to fair-mindedly compare Scripture with Scripture without their REPLACMENTARIAN GLASSES distorting Scripture incredbly out of whack; out of reality; out of history . . .
While I strongly believe that their Replacementarian doctrine is hideously damnable in that it condems folks to hell unnecessarily who would otherwise see the power, Salvation and majesty of God uniquely via the study of fulfilled and pending to be fulfilled prophecies of our era . . . as quite a number of folks I’ve witnessed to have come to a Saving knowledge of God via that route.
And, I can’t imagine that God is well pleased when Christ says to watch; wait; look up; learn to read the signs of the times etc. and they go 180 degrees in the OPPOSITE direction. And that with great theological ostentaciousness, even haughtiness.
I think it is wise, Biblical and loving for us to continue to lay out the Scriptures clearly and emphatically—even forcefully—for the lurkers.
But I think the classic REPLACEMENTARIAN perspective so often presented hereon is exceedingly unlikely to learn a shred of enlightenment regardless of how many verses we post and regardless of how emphatically clearly those verses blow their position out of the water.
I think I may start a long planned thread on the END TIMES prophecies in Isaiah . . . Perhaps I should make it a caucus thread though we’d have to be very scrupulous ourselves to stay within those guidelines.
It just seems that for Charismatics, Pentecostals et al to discuss END TIMES prophecies in some kind of mutually respectful, fair-minded peace . . . there’s no other alternative.
It’s against my bias to exclude anyone. But I also hate the wholesale UNBiblical Scripture mangling of the Replacementarian perspective . . . and all the more so when Scriptures which blow that perspective well out of the water, if not out of the galaxy are ignored.
It’s clear to me that the topic is an important one and I sometimes feel even an urgent one. Folks need to be aware of at least the rough outline of what’s coming down the Pike.
Futher . . . folks can be drawn closer and closer to God as they see such an increasingly urgent need to walk ever closer to God given the looming dramas. So, I think we must avoid being weary in well doing on this score.
But I would like at least a tentative commitment from some precious folks of like precious faith and perspective —to help out on such a thread to the benefit of the lurkers. Any takers?
Understand.
Thanks thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.