When Eve tempted Adam to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and he discovered their nakedness-- and please note that Eve was seemingly unaware of her nakedness until Adam ate of the fruit --their date with death was set. They were already dead spiritually, but physical death would be centuries in the making down a long and dusty road.
God, aware of what had happened, called out to Adam asking where he was. Of course God knew where Adam was, but it was necessary that Adam acknowledge and confess to God of where he was, and why he was hiding. Adam says, "I was naked, and hid myself."
"Who told thee that thou wast naked?" God asked. "Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"
The answer of course was yes. Adam had failed God's test, even as God knew he would. It was all part of the plan.
Hal Lindsey in his 1972 book "Satan is Alive and Well on Planet Earth" posited the following theory...
Being an angelic being... the "anointed cherub that covereth..," Satan can neither repent, nor be forgiven. Neither will the third of the angelic host who went to Lucifer's side be forgiven. Perhaps to the remaining two-thirds who kept their place this seemed entirely unjust of a God who claimed He was both loving and merciful. Lindsey postulates that God said something like, "I will prove to you how loving and merciful I am," then proceeded to create man in His own image, knowing full well that man would sin. Knowing full well that it would take the blood of God Himself to redeem fallen man. The angels no more knew the exact details of God's plan in regard to mankind than do we, though it is certainly fair to say they do know more, for the Bible says they watch and study the goings-on of men, and they rejoice when a sinner repents and accepts God's sacrifice. This is how He proves He is a loving and merciful God.
But back to the Garden. The first thing God does is hand out judgements-- First the serpent, then Eve, Adam, and finally the Earth. And to the woman He pronounces the very first prophetic statement... "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
God then preceeds to reveal the method by which Adam and his descendants must obtain forgiveness of sin. But it is an imperfect method, for the blood of lambs and bulls only covers sin, it does not take them away-- This is done to show fallen man the magnitude of his affront to God's law.
God then fashions coverings made from the skins of animals. Does Adam and Eve watch as God kills the animals? Are they taken aback by the spectacle of death and blood? Do they now recognize the gravity of their sin?
This is what is commonly referred to as a Type. It is an act that foreshadows a corresponding act sometime in the distant future... An Antitype.
The knowledge that an innocent animal must lose its life to cover their sin debt must have been a real shocker to Adam and Eve. Corn, Grains, Fruit... these are not sufficient to cover sin, as Cain soon discovers. Innocent blood must be shed to satisfy the requirement set by God.
But one day, as He promised Eve, one would come who would take away their sin.
Now let's leap ahead almost two-thousand years, to Abraham. God made Abraham a promise, that Abraham would be the father of a great and numerous nation. In order for this to happen Abraham would need to get Sarah with child, and as Sarah was an old woman, Abraham felt his prospects were not particularly good; hence the whole Hagar, and Ishmael episode. But in time God proved His faithfulness and Sarah gave birth to Isaac.
Thanks to films and children's picture books most people see Isaac as a small boy on the day God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son. But nowhere in the Genesis story is a small boy depicted. The King James uses the word "lad" which can mean anything between 6-16. This alone isn't enough to place Isaacs exact age-- we'll never know that this side of Heaven --but Isaac's questions reveal much about his age...
"Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?"This alone says Isaac was in possession of enough age and reason to recognize and ask questions about the ceremony of animal sacrifice. The fact that Isaac was made to carry the wood for the burnt offing shows he wasn't a small child, incapable of anything other than a small burden.
So what is Abraham's response? Again in the King James...
"My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering."Now, some will accuse me of reading into the text what I want it to read, but that doesn't change what's there... that God will provide HIMSELF as lamb. How could God possibly provide Himself-- His own physical presense --as a sacrifice?
Herein is another Type. One that has it's fulfillment many hundreds of years into the future. One that all the prophets looked forward to... the Messiah. Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ in the Greek language.
Let's compare:
[Gen 22:2]
"Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."It's interesting to note that the mountains of Moriah is where Jerusalem would later stand. And where the Temple of God would be built and animal sacrifice would be performed.
To: [John 3:16]
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Consider also: [1 Tim 3:16]
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..."God came to earth in mortal flesh for the purpose of sacrificing Himself for all of mankind.
[Gen 22:6] to [John 19:17]
"And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son..."
"And [Jesus] bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha..."
The point is this... As Issac carried the wood for his sacrifice, Jesus carried the the wood of His sacrifice, the cross. As Isaac consented to being bound for sacrifice, and being laid upon the altar, Jesus also went consenting to the altar of His sacrifice. As the rams horns were caught in a thicket, Jesus head was wreathed in thorns.
God doesn't do anything capriciously, without reason, or without purpose. All these things were done so as to provide an example, a glimpse into the ultimate sacrifice of God... His blood... for men.
Let's compare Joseph to Jesus... As Joseph was sold by his brethren for 20 pieces of silver, Jesus was sold by His brethren for 30. Though Joseph's brothers meant evil to their brother by selling Joseph and telling their father he was killed, their evil eventually saved them all from the famine that covered the known world. So in like manner the pharisees and the mobs that cried out for Barabbas rather than Jesus, though they meant their actions for evil, by the death of Jesus all men might now be saved from the penalty of their sin.
Here's a rather lengthy illustration of the similarities between Joseph and Jesus.
There are Types throughout the Old Testament that point to New Testament Anti-Types. The entire Bible is suffused with them, you can hardly read a chapter in the Old that doesn't relate to the New is some way, and vice versa.
Can the same be said for the Qur'an?
Next:
Detour, Part 7 - Isaiah 1:18 and the Introduction of Logic
Previously:
Detour, Part 5 - Jesus of Nazareth and Statistical Improbabilities
In Preparation for Detour, Part 5 - Exhibit B
In Preparation for Detour, Part 5 - Exhibit A
Detour, Part 4 - Comparing Translations to Established Christian Doctrines
Interlude No.1
Detour, Part 3 - Manuscripts, Translations, and "Why the KJV?"
Detour, Part 2 - The Nature and Limits of God... and why this is important
Detour, Parenthetical - "What Will Shortly Follow"
Detour, Part 1 - "Preamble"
Warning: Detour Ahead
"leap ahead almost two-thousand years" - 2108 years, from the Fall to Isaac's birth. :-)
We do have similar interests.
J
Great post!
D. Elrod (or Puff Daddy or whatever you're calling yourself these days) you say the darndest things! You're so cute!!!!
Oh, and here's yet another violent religious group- and their leader (like you, D!) claims that God talks to him! How cute!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901907.html
Aside from the obvious-- that man is at heart, wicked... and mocking commentors --what is your point?
You're preaching to the choir...
Point is that I don't think it's up to him to say who is trying to hijack Christianity.
I don't agree that man at heart is wicked- I think for every brutal movement society produces there are many, many peaceful and constructive ones. But we must not allow the brutal instincts we do have to seduce us, which is especially easy when one is certain he has God on his side. There are lots of OT and modern-day examples of that.
You don't have a very firm grasp on human nature. In fact, you're dead cold.
EL, right on about the "Heart,wicked" thingy! Just like ER, Sol has no grasp of what Christ's offer of redemption is even about. Mankind has no need of a saviour according to these revisionists.
Am I really? Wow!
What would you be then? A militant quasi-religious follower?
Sorry to disappoint you, but no. Maybe someday you can start your own cult. I was referring to your claim that God spoke to you directly (I seen it myself on your website).
"Redneck Revisionist" and "fags hugging in the pews" (also from your site) sure sounds like name calling to me. But "fagness," that one really cracked me up!
And I'm sorry you guys have such a dark take on humanity. I see why you need such rigid faith just to get yourself out of bed in the morning. Me, I think there's a lot of good to be said about my fellow human beings, and mostly I enjoy their company. Somehow, I've managed to make it this far even being dead cold, and it's worked pretty darn well for me. So I'll just keep my grasp the way it is.
My claim that God spoke to me directly?
What do you mean. That I said that God spoke to my heart through the discussions? Doesn't God speak to your heart, Sol?
If calling someone a "spritual revisionist" is "name-calling"--I'm guilty!
If calling a queer a fag is "name-calling"--I'm guilty, again.
If it affects you for me to call you a "name", then I guess it must hit home. Mission Accomplished!
If I'm to believe you wrote this in all sincerity, then I have to accept you deliberately chose "dead" and "cold". Your problem isn't with me or D.Daddio, or the faith we espouse; your problem is you. You've been living in the dark so long you can't see that it is you who has a "dark take on humanity" ...especially your own.
You need to cast off the god of this world in favor of God Almighty. And it's time I cease arguing with you and take matthew 7:6 to heart. You know more than all of us here, so comment all you want, but to continue debating you is pointless.
??
Ummm, I was just repeating what you had said. You're dead cold, you said.
You've been living in the dark so long you can't see that it is you who has a "dark take on humanity" ...especially your own.
Whatever. It was you who said man was wicked at heart, not me. From where I stand, that sounds pretty dark.
If calling a queer a fag is "name-calling"--I'm guilty, again.
What else would it be, exactly?
If it affects you for me to call you a "name", then I guess it must hit home. Mission Accomplished!
My, how Christian of you. May the Love of Jesus fill you, too.
Well....he was a er....umm....NAME-CALLER!
You wade into the battle, Sol, expect a fight, dude!
"Fag" "Queer", and "poofta" were all around before homosexuals decided to CALL themselves GAYS.
you can call a truck a "rig" or an "eighteen-wheeler or a "pick-up". They all apply. They all mean the same thing. They all get the point across.
I can call a homosexual a "pervert" because the definition of "pervert"
backs me up!
I can call a liberal elitest a "spritual revisionist" if that elitist's words back me up!
So,
I don't mind being (cough, cough) CALLED a name-CALLER!
Keep posting, D! Nothing discredits your ideas more than your own words. And you sure do provide a lot of entertainment for the rest of us.
Please don't confuse D. Daddio's posts as representing Christians or conservatives. I am both, but I am embarrassed by people like this. He is a young-earth creationist, so espouses views that have been discredited by science for centuries.
Please understand that we are not all like that. Belief in Christ has so much more to offer.
What in my last post is innacurate? If you want to accuse me of discrediting Christianity (like someone who worships science could understand Christianity, even), then answer that question!
What in my last post is innacurate?
BTW, Sol, I'd wager that at least some of Rosa Parks' grankis or great-grandkids call each other the "N" word. Imagine that!
Fags can call themselves "fags", "queers", "pooftas" and "bitches". Why are they offended--what do YOU care if someone else calls them the same?
BTW, Sternumdrill, I DON"T represent you're fantastical form of "christianity"!
Could you imagine John the Baptist travelling throughout the Holy-Land calling out to the crowd, "Come to Church! God loves you and accepts your sin along with your love! Be baptized! Continue in your sin--no problems, homey!"?
No he said repeatedly--REPENT!
Put up or shut up, man. You display WAY more hatred toward those that believe the truth of the Word of God than I could ever show towards gays.
Grow up!
I don't hate any person.
Hm. Aren't you the blogger formerly known as "Liberal Loather?"
"Grow up!"
Looks like I hit home. Mission accomplished!
Put up or shut up! Grow up!
Loathe fits nicely! I hate the modern "liberal" philosophy. I dislike most liberals' views I encounter on the web.
I abhor the "liberal" agenda.
I detest the liberal mindset.
Did you notice I put liberal in quotes? Thought so. The reasson? After reading the definition of "liberal", I have come to the conclusion that I've been wrong in labeling people liberals. I will now use quotes when referring to leftist, elitists.
Leftist elitists are neither giving, generous, unsparing, broad-minded, open-minded, tolerant, relaxed, impartial, flexible, progressive, free-thinking, independent, and most definetly not unselfish.
Sorry for diminishing the word by assigning it to name leftist elitists!
"Liberal" or Pseudo-Liberal--that's how I shall thus forth refer to these people!
Amen! Thanks for that. Hateful speech has nothing to do with Christ.
El, re: "Your problem isn't with me or D.Daddio, or the faith we espouse ..."
Unless I've missed something very profound, you and d.dad do not proclaim the same faith. What in the world are the commonalities?
Yeah--a-freaking-mazing.
I'm glad I'm RIGHT!
And it's not a recent-- or leftist-- thing. I recall my father, a conservative Republican and a Baptist, admonishing me against calling people fags more than 30 years ago.
He wasn't PC, he just didn't want me to grow up to be an asshole. If anything, he felt more strongly about it than I do, since I jokingly use words like that all the time my friends (gay and straight ones).
So, you're an ass-hole, Sol? Join the crowd.
I'm sure my dad thinks I'm an ass-hole at times, as well.
What does all the arguing here have to do with the post itself? We have gone so far afield, I don't recognize anything.
I will say this for Solomon... He loves to stir up controversy. It was probably his intent all along.
I feel none of this coming from your methods of teaching, preaching, or witnessing. what I get from it is alot of self rightousness and judgment.
something to keep in mind is... it also says if you are still arguing you dont get it !!
Sin is a personal issue.
you should focus on yourself not others. GOD ONLY SEES YOUR HEART
Balance--that's the key to success as a Christian.
Jeremiah 19:9
Psalm 14:3 & Romans 3:23
Mark 10:18
Pointing out that men are in need of a savior is hardly self-righteous... it is my Christian duty. It does require judgment, however, but judgment is not the same as condemnation-- I am commanded to judge the right or wrong of everthing and everyone I come in contact with... but not condemn.
fear of God is only the begining of wisdom. freedom is finding the love. there is no fear in love.
people are to look at you and see the love of god. This brings others to salvation, this makes them see. put down your book and look at jesus.
I agree. I don't intend to offend anyone. My goal is to expose leftist activists fallacies. That's all.
Do you really believe that the three terms I have been using to describe people with perverted sexual lifestyles actually offends any of them? I just can't believe that the use of either of those words would really offend them. Give them something to cry about? Yes! A thousand times YES!
They love it when they come across a conservative or a Christian who uses these words. Don't let them fool you.
I would venture to say that there is nothing-love, condemnation of sin, exposure to their own fallacies that would ever change these peoples' minds. They shape their religion to accomodate their sin.
From what I've read, I don't think this or any of the other conversation in threads on other blogs is a debate between people of the same faith.
seems to be people who look to the bible for their faith as incomplete and fading as it is...and those who look for the truth in christ.
wide is the road but narrow is the gate.
How does one follow Christ if he/she cannot trust the Bible which tells of Him?
Can you just pick and choose what you want to believe from the Bible, or what?
Does God have no standards?
Is there no Authority to follow?
Is it, after all, man's wisdom which guides us to Christ?
How can you know of God's love without trusting His word?
How can you reject God's judgement? After all, Hell is mentioned MANY more times than Heaven in the Bible.
Of course it's easy to justify anything if one picks and chooses which scripture is authentic and which applies to one personally.
I choose to believe the Bible's depiction of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I can't trust my own judgement.
Can you trust yours?
The Bible, itself says you cannot--should not! But if that is one of the portions you choose to reject, it makes you right in your philosophy.
Standards. Authority. Truth!
Enlightenment. Truth!