You aver that "the vast majority" of Greek manuscripts have the passage. This is far from being the case, and anyway, establishing the text is NOT merely a matter of counting manuscripts. I fear that you, like all King James Only advocates, know little of nothing about the issues of manuscripts and textual criticism.

But there is a survey about dispensationalism and such."

All right, JD, let me say it on this thread, if that will make you happier:

You ARE a hyperdispensationalist, according to any reasonable definition, as I gave on the other thread.

As for only believing Heb.8-10, that's a laugh. YOU are the one on this board who has declared to me that this passage only applies to Jews, and that its teaching cannot be held to negate your view that the Temple will be rebuilt, with all its sacrifices, priesthood, rituals, and so on. For you, in the Millennium it will be back to the OT economy - or something like it.

My position is that we must interpret the OT in the light of the NT, AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! (as you persist in doing)

So I take your comments and objections with not even so much as a grain of salt - even that is, I fear, giving them a value more than they're worth. I call distortion, corruption, and outright denial of Christian truth for what it is.

JD wrote:
And you need to go learn what a hyper-dispensationalist is before you go throwing around accusations. Very few people have called me a hyper here and then only the ignorant.

I could go on, but that will do.

All of this you have maintained on your may posts over several years. So don't give us the mendacious, disingenuous claptrap about you not being a hyper-Disp'ist. It won't wash!

I for one took very little notice of the whole charade. What was noticeable, however, was the way the pope himself, and the media (most of its journos are militant atheists - but ex-Catholics) talked about "Christians" and "Catholics" as convertible terms. Evangelical Protestants (the real ones) are for both parties beyond the pale. This I found the most objectionable thing about it all.

I am not claiming that my view of Matt.2:23 is the last word on this difficult text by any stretch, but it does, I believe, chart the proper path.
The key to it is the Hebrew text of the OT prophets, combined with the purpose of Matthew, i.e. to show to Jews that Jesus is the promised Messiah who fulfils the OT prophecies.

Matthew in a way (N.B.) uses the exegetical methods used by the Jews, but with an important twist: he never violates the wider historical and theological contexts. For instance, in the difficult text Matt.2:15, quoting Hos.11:1 Matthew incorporates the "Second Exodus" theme prevalent throughout the restoration passages of the prophets, e.g. Hosea 2:14-23.

DJC49 wrote:
MurrayA,
The simplest solution is that the "He shall be called a Nazarene" citation given in Mt 2:23 was based on Jewish oral tradition which REALLY opens up a whole can of worms. Doesn't it!
Thanks.

Now in NT times Nazareth was a backwater, in the view of the Jerusalem elite a place for the riff-raff, the accursed "people of the land" ('am ha'aretz) who did not know the Torah (John 7:49). There is a historical background to this, but we won't got into it.

Now the Evangelist does not merely allude to Isa.11:1 as a play on words. Matthew, I believe with brilliant Spirit-given insight, alludes to this prophecy to highlight on one hand Jesus' obscure origins from a place despised as not up to standard, and on the other to fulfil the prophecy that in Christ the Davidic line is resurrected.

DJC49 wrote:
I have a problem with Matthew 2:23 ...
I find that NOWHERE in the Old Testament is there a prophecy concerning the Messiah coming out of Nazareth...

With all due respect to Gill and Barnes, I believe there is a better explanation of Matt.2:23 than they offer. So allow me to share it with you, as I did in a sermon I preached on this very text (and Matt.2:15) some two years ago.

First, JD's facile "explanation" (7/21/08 2:03 PM) must be dismissed immediately. One only needs to find the word "spoken" in the formula of citation of an actual written OT text, as opposed to "written", and his conclusion collapses. Unfortunately for JD, the number of examples is considerable. Just a couple:
In John 12:38 the formula is what Isaiah the prophet SPOKE, and then cites Isa.53:1;
In Acts 28:25 Paul quotes what the Holy Spirit SPOKE through Isaiah, and then cites Isa.6:9-10.
Are these oral tradition too?

But I won't dwell on such fopperies.
The best explanation is to relate it to Isa.11:1, "A shoot will spring from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots will bear fruit."

1. What does "world" mean in the Johannine literature (Gospel of John, Epistles of John)? This term does need interpretation, notwithstanding your strictures. It has nothing to do with extent, either the elect or universal, but is qualitative.

2. How can the Feast of Booths be revived when Hebrews 8-10 makes it abundantly clear that the Old Covenant with all its apparatus is abolished forever because of the once-for-all sacrifice of the Cross?

3. When oh when did we ever discuss the Rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16? I don't recall ever doing so. You are an expert in dragging in red herrings, or attempting to wield arbitrary rods for people's backs.

Who was the Rich man? Who for that matter was the Pharisee in Luke 18:10? Who was the "certain Samaritan" in Luke 10:33? None of them are necessarily actual characters whom Jesus had actually met. Each is a representative of the class or genre, just as the older son in Luke 15:25ff represents the Pharisee class, and by extension religious people - dare I say like legalistic Fundamentalists.

JD wrote:
I know, MurrayA, and I am not trying to be unkind to you here, but my opinion of you is that you know very little about the Scriptures and you believe even less. If you do not believe what the verses say, one could not fault you for not understanding them and they certainly should not be surprised at your confession of ignorance.

Your own ignorance comes clear when you try to exegete Scripture as it stands. All you are doing is fitting Scripture into your Dispensational grid, then turn around and read off the various texts from that grid.

JD wrote:
If not, are you saying I am misrepresenting the texts? If so, will you please inform me how I am doing it.

There is just the assumption that the verses say what you think they say (whatever that is), while it is inconceivable to you that anyone could read them differently.

Aidan McDowell wrote:
MurrayA:
I found your Web site. The next time my wife and I go to Thailand (we have relatives there), I think I'd like to stop in Australia just to talk to you. Where do I find you?
Cordially

Let me know when you intend to arrive, and I'll come to meet the plane.

Michael Hranek wrote:
MurrayA
"The great champions of orthodoxy of the fourth century such as Athanasius, the Cappadocians, and then AUGUSTINE dominate the period..."

Are you trying to change the story you are telling?

The Cappadocians managed to explain to the Greek mindset the truth of the Trinity, so as to avoid Sabellianism on one hand, and the notion of hierarchicalism in the Persons of the Godhead on the other. We are in their debt for their success in this endeavour.

Aidan McDowell wrote:
MurrayA: Where is your Web site? (Am I allowed to ask in this forum?)
Cordially,

JD wrote:
I would remind everyone that it has not helped some to believe a clear and unambiguous revelation and prophecy of God in Ze 14...
That would, of course, include myself!
Is there anyone out there that uses the modern versions that would say they believe also what is plainly said in Zecariah 14?

As to the early Christians, many of them suffered excruciating tortures and death for their faith in Christ. Have you not read of Polycarp of Smyrna, Blandina of Lyons, Perpetua and Felicitas of North Africa, Cyprian of Carthage, and the numerous martyrs of the Diocletian persecution? These stories still inspire the Christian reader, even if those times seem remote.
Then Athanasius of Alexandria stood for the full Deity of Christ in a time when it seemed most of the church wanted to ditch it. Have you read that story?

Then you labour under confusion when you rhetorically ask, "If God chose Israel to be His people, and not the others, is not this showing partiality?" No, it's not, as Deut.7:7-8 makes clear. Partiality by definition envisages selection on the basis of some quality within the person (or people group), which is specifically excluded in the case of God and Israel.

Your latest post concerning 2 Sam.14:14 does nothing to change the situation regarding welo' yissa' 'elohim nephesh. "God does not take away life" is a perfectly legitimate way of rendering the Hebrew, and fits the context. To see this, consult a range of commentaries (not merely your KJVO popes).

If the narrator had wished to express the idea that "God is no respecter of persons" he would have used lo' yissa' panim (as in Deut.10:17 & elsewhere).

2 Sam. The relevant clause is, "God does not take away life" (NASB). This is a perfectly legitimate way of rendering the Hebrew welo' yissa' 'elohim nephesh. In context the woman in pleading her case before the king (David) tells a parable to ring the changes on the king's decision regarding the woman's son on one hand, when he is shamefully inconsistent in leaving his own son Absalom in exile. The woman fears the go'el haddam (avenger of blood) slaying her own son; then appeals to the king that leaving Absalom in exile will not achieve anything: God does not take away life.
This makes better sense here than talking about God not respecting persons. Anyway, nasa' with nephesh does not normally have this meaning (see below).