Posted on 06/01/2014 1:08:44 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
bfl!
Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong.
Joel 3:10 KJV
"Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears..." (Joel 3:10)
A little different outlook.
>>>”Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears...” (Joel 3:10)<<<
>>>A little different outlook.<<<
Is that referring to the destruction of Jerusalem?
Philip
LOL! Jesus said he came to send a sword, but not in that context:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Mt 10:34-36 KJV)
The early Christians were considered heretics and blasphemers. It was a tough row to hoe.
Philip
“Is that referring to the destruction of Jerusalem?”
I take it that a man posting up a vanity thread and commenting on scripture should be looking it up or at least re-reading Joel which is quite short. Afterall, your vanity thread here presupposes you as either very literate or a Bible expert.
Valley of Johesphat ~Kidron Valley is the place of final judgement and Joel is essentially an apocolyptic text, “Day of the Lord” stuff etc. Jerusalem enemies gather to destroy it, God encourages Judahs enemies...turn plowshare to swords,etc. but God vindicates or saves them(Judah/Jerusalem). The locusts are a back story matching up to the apocolyptic part of Joel. Locusts overrunning Judah, Jerusalems enemies overtaking Jerusalem, but all is turned back or defeated.
Yadda Yadda Yadda, it’s your thread!
>>>I take it that a man posting up a vanity thread and commenting on scripture should be looking it up or at least re-reading Joel which is quite short. Afterall, your vanity thread here presupposes you as either very literate or a Bible expert.<<<
That is some first-class finger-wagging. But I am puzzled by your self-imposed rule that when you start a thread, you are not allowed to ask questions. Are you uninterested in the opinions and interpretations of others?
Philip
Is this now about me?
>>>Is this now about me?<<<
Let me check . . .
It must be. I dont’ see my finger wagging.
Philip
if you want me to take down my post , just say the word and I’ll ask the r.m.
>>>if you want me to take down my post , just say the word and I’ll ask the r.m.<<<
Your post is fine.
Philip
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Thanks, Moderator.
A much more reasonable explanation for why Isaiah mentions Judah (and not Israel) is that during the time of his ministry, the Northern Kingdom was not in existence.
It is also very disturbing that you run off to Revelation, then Hebrews, then back to Revelation, then Acts, then Galatians, etc. etc. ... to provide context and interpretation of a prophecy in the OT.
This highlights what I have been trying to tell you for some time ...
The basic flaw in your approach is not interpretive ... its your theological method that you are employing. By reading the NT back into the OT you transform the OT prophecy of Isaiah into something that it is not. You have yanked Isaiah out of its historical context, almost as if all that historical and OT background is irrelevant.
Thanks Philip, Good thread.
I am not sure I understand. Are you implying that the prophecy of Isaiah 2 was referring the era before the Jews were carried away unto Babylon? I assumed that Isaiah 2 was referring to first century AD because of the use of the words, "last days," which were also used to identify the days of the ministry of Christ and the day of Pentecost, as explained in the post.
>>>It is also very disturbing that you run off to Revelation, then Hebrews, then back to Revelation, then Acts, then Galatians, etc. etc. ... to provide context and interpretation of a prophecy in the OT.<<<
It did not disturb me. Explain why you are disturbed (with scripture, if you will.)
>>>This highlights what I have been trying to tell you for some time ... The basic flaw in your approach is not interpretive ... its your theological method that you are employing. By reading the NT back into the OT you transform the OT prophecy of Isaiah into something that it is not. You have yanked Isaiah out of its historical context, almost as if all that historical and OT background is irrelevant.<<<
Are you saying that Isaiah 2 was referring to Judah before Babylon? You posted exactly zero verses to explain yourself, in all cases; so I can only guess what you are trying to say.
If you believe my interpretation of a scripture, or scriptures, is in error, please post those scriptures and explain why. If I am in error, I really do want to know. But as I have stated many times: your opinion is simply an opinion; not proof.
Philip
Philip, I clicked on the link for this article and it goes to your FR homepage. Is there a blog you are operating from where we can see the source of your posting? Or is this considered a ‘vanity’ thread?
>>>Philip, I clicked on the link for this article and it goes to your FR homepage. Is there a blog you are operating from where we can see the source of your posting? Or is this considered a ‘vanity’ thread?<<<
There is no link or blog. The source is my notes.
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.