Does anyone know of....
- Thread starter Lamar
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You're delusional. Neither translations says what you claim. Are you mistaking king David for God in the NIV translation that says "....completely followed the ways of his father David..."? Yet, David was not without sin. In fact, David committed grievous sins against God, which means that "righteous" king David did not "obey God's law perfectly", which harmonizes nicely with Eccl 7:20; 1Ki 8:46. Anyone with a half a brain, who knew anything about king David, would understand that since Josiah was being compared to imperfect David, that his obedience to God's commands could not logically have been "perfect".
Nehemiah's statement implied without sin! If Josiah wasn't sinless when he "obeyed the Law perfectly" (Nehemiah's words), then neither was Jesus who also "obeyed the Law perfectly" -- but yet scripture also speaks of Jesus as being WITHOUT SIN, i.e. "sinless" (Heb 4:15). So, since this was the case with Jesus, how could it not be the same for the perfect law-keeper Josiah? Explain that to me, Einstein! Was Jesus' perfect obedience to his Father's commandments more perfect than Josiah's?
Explain to me how any superlative can be improved upon or diminished, since by definition "superlative" means "supreme", "excellent" and denotes "an extreme or unsurpassed level or extent"?
Nehemiah's statement implied without sin! If Josiah wasn't sinless when he "obeyed the Law perfectly" (Nehemiah's words), then neither was Jesus who also "obeyed the Law perfectly" -- but yet scripture also speaks of Jesus as being WITHOUT SIN, i.e. "sinless" (Heb 4:15). So, since this was the case with Jesus, how could it not be the same for the perfect law-keeper Josiah? Explain that to me, Einstein! Was Jesus' perfect obedience to his Father's commandments more perfect than Josiah's?
Explain to me how any superlative can be improved upon or diminished, since by definition "superlative" means "supreme", "excellent" and denotes "an extreme or unsurpassed level or extent"?Oh but it is! The alternative is to remain helplessly in bondage to sin and the devil and the kingdom of darkness. You don't have first clue what the Exodus is teaching. If you can't figure out the easier-to-understand physical types, how in the world are going to understand the spiritual antitype substances?
As I said earlier, you don't have a clue on what typology of the Exodus, a major theme in the bible, is teaching. It's no wonder at all that you don't understand God's great salvation. As Jesus basically said to Nicodemus (to paraphrase), "If you don't understand or believe earthly things, then how will you believe heavenly things?"
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Ah! I also meant to ask @Cameron143 where in Isaiah you are currently studying?
Three of my recent panels have been from Isaiah...
Three of my recent panels have been from Isaiah...
-
1
- Show all
You're delusional. Neither translations says what you claim. Are you mistaking king David for God in the NIV translation that says "....completely followed the ways of his father David..."? Yet, David was not without sin. In fact, David committed grievous sins against God, which means that "righteous" king David did not "obey God's law perfectly", which harmonizes nicely with Eccl 7:20; 1Ki 8:46. Anyone with a half a brain, who knew anything about king David, would understand that since Josiah was being compared to imperfect David, that his obedience to God's commands could not logically have been "perfect".
Nehemiah's statement implied without sin! If Josiah wasn't sinless when he "obeyed the Law perfectly" (Nehemiah's words), then neither was Jesus who also "obeyed the Law perfectly" -- but yet scripture also speaks of Jesus as being WITHOUT SIN, i.e. "sinless" (Heb 4:15). So, since this was the case with Jesus, how could it not be the same for the perfect law-keeper Josiah? Explain that to me, Einstein! Was Jesus' perfect obedience to his Father's commandments more perfect than Josiah's? Explain to me how any superlative can be improved upon or diminished, since by definition "superlative" means "supreme", "excellent" and denotes "an extreme or unsurpassed level or extent"?
Nehemiah's statement implied without sin! If Josiah wasn't sinless when he "obeyed the Law perfectly" (Nehemiah's words), then neither was Jesus who also "obeyed the Law perfectly" -- but yet scripture also speaks of Jesus as being WITHOUT SIN, i.e. "sinless" (Heb 4:15). So, since this was the case with Jesus, how could it not be the same for the perfect law-keeper Josiah? Explain that to me, Einstein! Was Jesus' perfect obedience to his Father's commandments more perfect than Josiah's?
Explain to me how any superlative can be improved upon or diminished, since by definition "superlative" means "supreme", "excellent" and denotes "an extreme or unsurpassed level or extent"?
-
1
- Show all
That's approximately twelve chapters per year = one chapter per month! Six months to go... woo hoooo!
Isaiah 42:16 ~ I will lead the blind by a way they did not know; I will guide them on unfamiliar paths. I will turn darkness into light before them and rough places into level ground. These things I will do for them, and I will not forsake them.
Isaiah 42:16 ~ I will lead the blind by a way they did not know; I will guide them on unfamiliar paths. I will turn darkness into light before them and rough places into level ground. These things I will do for them, and I will not forsake them.
-
1
- Show all
Just making wild, crazy claims doesn't make it so! Why don't you answer this question? What does it take to be sinless besides keeping the law perfectly? Since Josiah and Jesus both kept the law perfectly and Jesus was "without sin", how can Josiah also not be without sin, since Nehemiah66 claimed that this king also obeyed God's law perfectly?
Does quoting the following make me guilty of calling God a liar?
Luke 1:5-6
5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.
Luke 1:5-6
5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.
-
1
- Show all
As many of you know, I did a very brief series of posts on the Typology of The Exodus on the Atonement thread. Correct understanding of the visible, physical, temporal redemption of God's chosen, covenant people is critically important to the proper understanding of its antitype, which is the invisible, spiritual, eternal redemption promised in the New Covenant. The other morning I was having my devotions in the Psalms and Ps 105 strongly reinforced a few parallels I made between the types and antitypes, which I'd like to briefly share with you.
Ps 105:17-20
17 and he sent a man before them —
Joseph, sold as a slave.
18 They bruised his feet with shackles,
his neck was put in irons,
19 till what he foretold came to pass,
till the word of the LORD proved him true.
20 The king sent and released him,
the ruler of peoples set him free.
One of the types I made in my above mentioned series is that godless, pagan Egypt was a type of an equally wicked world. Verse 20 in the above passage reinforces this type by telling us, essentially, that Egypt was very likely the first world empire. The tip off to this conclusion is the term "peoples", which is just another way of saying "nations". Pharaoh was a ruler of nations, just as Satan is the "god of this age" (2Cor 4:4) and the "ruler of the kingdom of the air" (Eph 2:2) which is also Satan's kingdom of darkness (Col 1:13).
Also, as a brief aside, many conservative bible scholars understand the "seven heads and seven hills" and the "seven kings" in Rev 17:9-10 as referring to kingdoms in the context passage, which speaks of five that have fallen, one is and one is to come. So, these kingdoms or empires would have chronologically been Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Mede-Persia, Greece and Rome, with one more to come. I totally agree with this interpretation; for "heads" can be understood as individual kings or kingdoms with context, of course, being the determinate.
And we must not forget that God raised Pharaoh up to literally make him a shameful, humiliating spectacle on the world stage, and to actually diminish the Egyptian empire in the eyes of the other nations, since the God of the Israelites totally defeated Egypt's pantheon of Gods, including Pharaoh who was considered be the god of Egypt who mediated between his nation and the other gods.
Then we have this passage in the same Psalm:
Ps 105:24-25
24 The LORD made his people very fruitful;
he made them too numerous for their foes,
25 whose hearts he turned to hate his people,
to conspire against his servants.
NIV
In this passage, too, we can certainly see another strong parallel between Egypt the type and the world the antitype. Egypt hated God's chosen, covenant people just as the world hates God's New Covenant people (Jn 15:18-19; 1Jn 3:13).
We know that God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he would not let his chosen people go. But this passage takes to "hardening" to another level by including all Egypt ("their foes"). This passage very strongly reinforces the sovereinty of God that is found in several Proverbs, in Jer 10, etc. Tthe hearts of kings are not the only hearts that God controls (Prov 21:1) but the hearts of entire nations, as well!
Moreover, the implication to this passage is that God gave Egypt over to a reprobate mind. One of the major premises to my typology series is that God "came down" to resucue solely HIS firstborn -- only HIS chosen, covenant people -- only Abraham's descendants. God did not come down to rescue Egypt anymore than Christ came down from heaven to rescue the entire world from its sins. Christ came into this world to save his Father's elect -- all whom the Father gave to him in eternity.
Ps 105:17-20
17 and he sent a man before them —
Joseph, sold as a slave.
18 They bruised his feet with shackles,
his neck was put in irons,
19 till what he foretold came to pass,
till the word of the LORD proved him true.
20 The king sent and released him,
the ruler of peoples set him free.
One of the types I made in my above mentioned series is that godless, pagan Egypt was a type of an equally wicked world. Verse 20 in the above passage reinforces this type by telling us, essentially, that Egypt was very likely the first world empire. The tip off to this conclusion is the term "peoples", which is just another way of saying "nations". Pharaoh was a ruler of nations, just as Satan is the "god of this age" (2Cor 4:4) and the "ruler of the kingdom of the air" (Eph 2:2) which is also Satan's kingdom of darkness (Col 1:13).
Also, as a brief aside, many conservative bible scholars understand the "seven heads and seven hills" and the "seven kings" in Rev 17:9-10 as referring to kingdoms in the context passage, which speaks of five that have fallen, one is and one is to come. So, these kingdoms or empires would have chronologically been Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Mede-Persia, Greece and Rome, with one more to come. I totally agree with this interpretation; for "heads" can be understood as individual kings or kingdoms with context, of course, being the determinate.
And we must not forget that God raised Pharaoh up to literally make him a shameful, humiliating spectacle on the world stage, and to actually diminish the Egyptian empire in the eyes of the other nations, since the God of the Israelites totally defeated Egypt's pantheon of Gods, including Pharaoh who was considered be the god of Egypt who mediated between his nation and the other gods.
Then we have this passage in the same Psalm:
Ps 105:24-25
24 The LORD made his people very fruitful;
he made them too numerous for their foes,
25 whose hearts he turned to hate his people,
to conspire against his servants.
NIV
In this passage, too, we can certainly see another strong parallel between Egypt the type and the world the antitype. Egypt hated God's chosen, covenant people just as the world hates God's New Covenant people (Jn 15:18-19; 1Jn 3:13).
We know that God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he would not let his chosen people go. But this passage takes to "hardening" to another level by including all Egypt ("their foes"). This passage very strongly reinforces the sovereinty of God that is found in several Proverbs, in Jer 10, etc. Tthe hearts of kings are not the only hearts that God controls (Prov 21:1) but the hearts of entire nations, as well!
Moreover, the implication to this passage is that God gave Egypt over to a reprobate mind. One of the major premises to my typology series is that God "came down" to resucue solely HIS firstborn -- only HIS chosen, covenant people -- only Abraham's descendants. God did not come down to rescue Egypt anymore than Christ came down from heaven to rescue the entire world from its sins. Christ came into this world to save his Father's elect -- all whom the Father gave to him in eternity.