LindaR

WOW! This thread has blossomed. I got bizzee and lost track. Travelling for the next couple of days, but will check in when I'm back. I want to catch up a bit on the posts and then jump back in.

Later!

I wrestle with those more than anything and lately am realizing, at least with JCNG, that it may not be a valid premise to argue.

Ever thought about this in relation to "seed after its own kind"? If Jesus was the "only begotten" of God, what kind was/is He? Food for thought anyway. LKRS

I thought along those lines a number of years ago, but became reluctant to mix the two figures (bride/body). You put it very clearly, and I may reconsider!

Same here. Reconsider in light of Eph. 5. (Perhaps that section of Scripture is more than simply practical application for married Christians. Ever thought it might have a prophetic aspect?)

Wow, Oldies, welcome to the thread. Going to stick around for a bit?

Linda, what you said about hate, in regard to Jacob and Esau is pretty much what I have found in my research these past two days as well. I think someone else in this thread said it too, but I can't remember who. The idea being that God didn't literally hate Esau, but rejected him as the heir.

Yes - rejected him as the heir - specifically the birthright inheritance. He remained an heir, but not heir of the birthright, which would normally to go to the firstborn. The birthright inheritance is distinctive in that it is a double portion, and it is a leadership matter ("lordship", if you will - which is why Joseph's brothers were angry at him when Jacob chose him for the birthright).

In my opinion (interpretation - thus, could be wrong) the reason Scripture tells the story of several generations of firstborns losing their birthright (and then Paul brings it up again) is to point to the fact that Christ, the LAST ADAM, became the recipient of what should have belonged to the FIRST ADAM. If you connect this with what I Cor. says about the resurrection and the fact that flesh comes first, then spirit, you can see that it is in the spirit that the fullness of the birthright exists, and that it culminates post-resurrection.

A further connection in all of this (again IMO) is the promise God made to Abraham and confirmed again with Jacob (concerning birthright, by the way - and the underlying theme of Romans 9-11). There is a big argument amongst Christian theologians today about whether the Church displaces Israel as the recipient of this birthright. IN CHRIST both Israel and the Church share in it as "joint heirs" with Him. My view of this is that during the thousand years Israel is figuratively the Bride of the Lamb (who is also Christ, the Head of the Body).

If you carry this figure out, it's like saying members of the Body are parts of the Groom, whereas members of Israel are parts of the Bride. When the two come together in the millennial union, they receive what the Father always promised. And even beyond that, (IMO) this union becomes the focal point of the salvation of the world. (I base this upon the figurative language in Rev. about the nations being called to Jerusalem to celebrate Tabernacles, and if they refuse, will shrivel without "rain".)

There is so much about this that can't be made clear in a few short paragraphs. Bottom line, it's about examining the prophetic figures in Scripture - a real thorn in the side of those who emphasize the literal method of interpreting the Bible.

This is my field of study, and it has been EXTREMELY difficult. I don't fit in with either camp. The "liberals" think I'm a nut, though they accept the premise of examining figures as an aspect of literary criticism. The "conservatives" think I'm a heretic because I don't subscribe whole-heartedly to trinitarian, dispensationalist, supersessionist, "prophetic" theology.

Okay, I'm done with my rant.

Later,

LR

This post is going to seem disjointed. I hate to do this, but I'm going to try it anyway.

I located my class notes on a graduate-level lecture about Romans 9-11. Dr. Davis suggested that Paul was using a type of midrash known as binyan av when he spoke of Jacob and Esau (the "love"/"hate" issue in reference to inheritance). Before I continue what I was getting to earlier, here is a slightly edited definition of binyan av (from R. Ishmael's 13 midot) that I found on the internet:

"Binyan Av is interpretation by analogy. [it] analogizes from theme and generalization instead of specific verbal phrase. There are [two] types of Binyan Av. The first is simple analogy: If [in] case A law X applies, then [in] a similar case B law X also applies. Thus, when there are certain things noted in case A, then they are true too for case B.

The second occurs when there is an objection to the comparison of [case] A and [case] B. A new case or cases are introduced linking A and B by analogy. The analogy is determined by the use of a general case expanded from a specific case, and identifying characteristics in the specific case. This becomes A. Case B becomes analogous if it shares characteristics with A's specific, and therefore can be said to share A's generalized characteristics [as well]."

This is from a list compiled by Steve Lipton (don't know him). I have taken the liberty of clarifying his verbage which can be accessed at:

http://www.shlomosdrash.com/middot.pdf

Okay, I'm going to post this and see what it leads to. (At the very least it will be a lesson in midrash. Perhaps we can unravel Paul's hermeneutic in Romans.)

By the way, I was not zapped in that electrical storm. But I am a little frazzled nonetheless. :blink: More later.

LR

The "hate Esau" issue is related to context which in turn is an example of Paul's use of midrash to make a specific point. (Remember that this is in Rom. 9, which is part of the Rom. 9-11 unit. The context is inheritance.) Paul is referencing an ancient legal custom as a way to make a point about spiritual a matter.

If you do a careful study of the word, "hate", you will notice that is doesn't mean detest, it simply means not to love. In this case it's not love in a cherishing sense as we typically think. It is in the sense of choosing or selecting specifically for the position of "birthright" inheritance.

Esau was in line for the birthright but was not chosen (another study in itself). Part of the midrash involves understanding the "birthright" customs. By law ancient custom it was to go to the firstborn. The recipient of the birthright would receive double the portion of inheritance of all the others in line for inheritance. He would also become the "head" of the tribe, its representative to God, its chief warrior and protector.

MORE LATER - GOTTA TURN PUTER OFF - ELECTRICAL STORM!

Skip was part of Joyful Noise in the '70s, when he was in the Corps, which is probably what is referred to when it says, "It was at this time Skip returned to school in the midwest and did independent production and recording while getting his Degree." Probably didn't want to mention he was in a cult.

TAKIT was an offshoot of Joyful Noise that started out being based at HQ in New Knoxville, but then went to LA in 1981 or so, to try and break into the secular music field. They lasted two or three years there before disbanding.

Skip was actually in a Way group called Sonship. So was my husband.

Blessings!

LR

Hi Roger - dittos to wrdsandwrks

Blessings,

Linda Sisneros

New Mexico

Also, a great book, is Patrick Heron's book (yes, he was 12th corps from Ireland), the Nephilim, the Pyramids and Apocolypse, something like that. It was a best seller on Amazon for awhile. I think its ten bucks, I ordered it from Amazon. He gives a great overview, has pics, etc. He really did his research, explaining their names, etc.

Why do I like this theory? Because it explains why:

1. God told Israel to wipe out certain tribes. Its not that God was a genocidal maniac.

2. It explains why Jesus told his disciples, when asking for signs of the coming end times, said: It shall be as it was in the days of Noah. I imagine these fallen angels were doing lots of DNA cross-species manipulation creating their offspring, even the animals weren't left alone. I think the "myths" of Greece and other civilizations of hybred animals, were based in truth. Now, mankind is doing some weird DNA manipulation and will eventually create cross-species - going against God's natural law. Thus, we are now in the "days of Noah."

3. Explains why there was a flood. All of mankind had been corrupted. Thus, the Savior could not redeem mankind, Satan would be victorious, the earth forevermore his. That's why when Gen. says Noah was "perfect" - I believe the Hebrew word means, genetically perfect. As a descendent of Adam - he was fully human, his genes had not been corrupted. As we know, and Satan knew, the Savior would come through Adam's line. So, destroy it.

4. Explains why, after all the corruption, Israel were not to worship these strange gods.

I also note, that all of the ancient Gods, from Maya, Babylon, Sumeria, all had the same names, and Appolyon (Apollo) their leader, all of whom are "chained" up until the last days, will rise again (Rev.), they will be released from their prison. I think mankind, will once again, worship these beings, as gods.

Tomrrow I'll find some links.

I know it sounds crazy, but it sure does answer some questions and tie some things together.

Fascinating!

This info. is pertinent to my dissertation. (Explained in the doctrinal survey thread - sorry, I don't remember the exact name right now.)

The heart of my thesis is that the "dispensations" are chiasmically arranged, which means that the dispensations on one side of the central axis (Christ administration in my dispensational scheme) mirror the dispensations on the other side of it. (Observe the structure of the menorah for a visual example.) Thus the idea that there is a time/age/dispensation that mirrors Noah's makes perfect sense to me.

Where I disagree is that, "we are now in the 'days of Noah' ". The figure/pattern I use for my dispensational scheme is the sacred calendar of the Seven Feasts (Heb. moed, "appointed times"). Dispensational theology is about "redemptive history", thus I believe it begins with the need for "redemption", namely at Adam's sin. (So-called "progressive dispensationalists" are in agreement with this.)

My suggested scheme is juxtaposed beside the seven appointed times thus:

DISPENSATION FEAST/APPOINTED TIME

Adam's day (beginning with his sin) Passover (God clothed Adam w/skin)

Noah's day (beginning with flood) Unleavened Bread (leaven cleansed out)

Abraham's day (beginning with "seed" promise) Firstfruits (all families blessed)

Christ's day (beginning with birth ending w/Pentecost) Pentecost (fulfilled "seed" promises)

Church/Body day (beginning with Pentecost) Trumpets (mystery made known;

enemy's kingdom revealed by Church;

trumpet sounds & Body joins Head in

the air!)

"Tribulation" day Day of Atonement (earthly conflict

because "son of perdition" is fully

revealed, no holy spirit holding it

back)

Millennium Tabernacles (resurrection; Lord returns

"with His", puts all things in order;

2nd resurrection & unchaining Satan;

final judgment (sin & its source

permanently eradicated)

New heaven & earth "Eighth Day"

This is very sketchy, of course. But the point is that the "mirroring" effect of this chiasmic arrangement can be seen between the day of "tribulation" (coming in the next administration) and that which happened in Noah's day (the second administration, according to my scheme).

Thanks for the great post. I'll definitely be checking out the literature you've suggested!

Blessings,

LR

A couple of 15th-Corps friends of mine introduced me to Cinda Lee years ago (hoping to set us up). Nothing came of it, but I do remember she was a doll! If you are out there, hello again!

George

Thanks, George!

LR

Abi: You're right. Modern menorahs have 9 points rather than 7. The Bible specifies a 7-point candlestick for the tabernacle, and the friese (sp?) that depicts the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE shows the 7-point menorah. I read somewhere that the sages determined a 9-point menorah would be used until such time as the Temple could be rebuilt and its original appointments be restored.

Even still, the 9-point menorah is a chiasmic structure. In literary terms, chiasm (or chiasmus) is a device for expressing the bilateral parallel ("mirroring") of a series of concepts. Bullinger (Companion Bible) shows this in his section diagrams of Scripture. He calls it "inversion". As for the menorah, whether 7-point or 9-point, the "bilateral parallel" is the mirroring of one set of candlesticks with the other set on the opposite side of the lampstand/stem.

The "sacred calendar" is somewhat of a scholarly term used to distinguish the "sacred" arrangement of the seven feasts from the "civil" arrangement. The civil calendar has the Hebrew month of Tishri at the beginning of the year. (Coincides with September or October.) The sacred calendar has Nisan at the beginning of the year. (Coincides with March or April.) The older of the two is the civil version. According to Leviticus 23 God instructed Moses to make Passover the first feast and Nisan the first month of the year. Thus the term, "sacred".

"Menology" is a calendar of months (from Greek for month, i.e. men). It came to be used in the Greek Orthodox tradition as the annual (or bi-annual or tri-annual) cycle of celebrations related to the saints. The term is not used much at all today. For my dissertation I needed a single term to summarize a broader concept, namely the figurative aspects of the "sacred" calendar of the seven feasts as formulated in Lev. 23.

When John the Baptist pointed to Jesus and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!" it was a figure of speech called hypocatastasis. Simplified, it means something like "name calling". It would be like calling someone with sloppy eating habits, "Pig!" Only one noun is used, another is implied, and no verb or modifier is used. It is the strongest expression of resemblance between two things (more powerful than simile or metaphor). Everything associated with the sacrificial Passover lamb would thus refer to Jesus. "Taking away the sins of the world" is one aspect that John the Baptist actually expressed the second time he pointed to Jesus and called him the Lamb of God.

Paul speaks of Christ as our "Passover", a similar idea. Since Passover is but one of seven feasts (Heb. moed, meaning "appointed time") on the sacred calendar, we can wonder if/how he is associated with the other six. These individual associations and an association with the entire annual cycle are implied by the term, "menology". (Technically then, "menology" is hypocatastasis when used this way.)

T-Bone: You shed light on a confusing aspect of biblical study when you said, "who says I have to attribute God's emotions to a figure of speech?" Your question implies that God's emotion would be an attribute (aspect relative to) the figure. In actuality it is the reverse. The figure expresses an attribute of God's emotion. In the Bible figures are a way of drawing attention to something so profound that no literal ordinary language could express the depth of it. To speak of God's "hatred" is to speak of repugnance so profound that no human hatred could grasp it. Your question was very helpful.

See why I prefer short answers? Thanks for the questions tho'. It's good practice. I'm writing my dissertation now, which can be an isolating experience. Having feedback helps tremendously. Does color help? :unsure:

Dan: Love your family pic! This is what it's really all about!

LR

Eyes: It seems to me, we are addressing different aspects of the same question. One aspect is propensity/potential. The other is action/behavior. Love is NEVER fruitless. Is it possible for homosexuals and/or heterosexuals to love and not engage in fruitless actions? As a married woman, for example, can I love another man without engaging in fruitless action? It seems to me that the answer is yes. Sexual propensity and/or lustful desire are issues of potential. My answer to the doctrinal question assumed that an action took place, in which case fruit (or lack of it) is the issue. I based my answer on the fact that Scripture likens actions to sowing seed, and by extension to production of fruit (or not).

Abi: No I haven't studied midrash per se. My academic advisor teaches a course on ancient Hebraic methods of searching the Scriptures, which I took as a graduate student. It included the methods themselves, which are named and have specific rules. In Greek we would call them hermeneutical principles. The course also included examples of rulings or applications of the methods. In Greek the term for this is exegesis. The Hebraic equivalent of exegesis is also the term, midrash, which can be confusing.

The title of my dissertation is "Seven Feasts: A Menology of the Ages". It is a comparison between the seven "appointed times of the Lord" (Lev. 23) and the seven so-called dispensations/administrations. I use the term, "menology" when referring to the sacred calendar as a figure for the so-called "plan of redemption" and its counterpart, "redemptive history" in dispensationalist and covenant theology.

Part of my thesis is that the sacred calendar is arranged as a chiasmic structure. The menorah is a visual example of such a structure, having a central stem and six branches on each side. The sacred calendar is arranged as Passover, Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits, Pentecost, Trumpets, Day of Atonement and Tabernacles. The first three are observed as a unit, and so are the last three. Pentecost is the central "appointed time" in the menology, and is observed singularly. One definitive aspect of Pentecost is that it is "sevens of sevens". In a corresponding dispensational scheme Christ's administration is central.

The above refers to the hermeneutic aspect of my study (an application of various figurative methods, like chiasm, numeric symbolism and metaphor - especially "Lamb of God" for Jesus, and "seed" for resurrection. The exegesis is another matter.

Yikes! ENOUGH ALREADY!!

LR

Eyes: Yes, to your question. And also it is a metaphor for "fruitless" behavior in general, I think.

Yep, addicting alright -

Another Dan: Thanks for the tip. (I'll be defending my dissertation soon, so perhaps the "rough" practice will be good for me.) How'd you get those nifty pics into the post?

On with the survey:

I Cor. 12 deserves in-depth study and a long narrative answer because it's about the benefits of divine nature (God's and His nature in us). 'S-all for now.

Not sure God is moved by prayer, but when I add my prayers to His purposes, things happen.

All religion is a perversion.

Best I can tell, Jesus' teaching is midrash and should lead to practical application of some kind. (God takes "should" into account in the same way He takes everything about flesh into account.)

"Sin-consciousness" is often self-consciousness I've noticed. Better to be HIM-conscious and confess sin when you need to.

Re. canon: Was the canonization process an aspect of "God-breathed"? Dunno.

Apostolic and prophetic gifts are active today, but I don't think these are titles or "offices".

Being "born again" is a resurrection process. (I loved Roy's answer.)

I loved Roy's answer about the sabbath too. It is a resting place; it is the seventh; and in the big picture, Tabernacles is the 7th of 7 "appointed times" (Passover being first) - this is a metaphor for our dwelling/rest with the Lord, first during the 1000 yrs., then forever.

LR

This could be addicting.

Thanks for the welcome.

Another Dan: What do you mean, "be careful in here"?

Roy, I love you!

Details of the survey, best I can remember (and, "true/false" answers are too confining):

Scripture is God-breathed.

Job is "wisdom" literature.

Homosexuality is fruitless.

God loves us all.

Love summarizes law and justice.

All for now -

LR

First post -

Beliefs:

God is god (and I'm not).

Jesus is lord (I try not to be).

I am a child of the living God - by SEED ("after it's kind") - and so one day (in the resurrection) I will be holy, even as HE is holy.

There ain't no arriving til HE arrives.

LR

Does anyone know where Cinda is? Today I was remembering that my husband and I once gave her a car - it was a TANK! (HEAVY METAL!) Cinda, if you're out there, we'd love to hear from you!! Hope all is well with you. We miss hearing you sing!