To the Thread:
In recent posts, I challenged Emile to answer a simple question that arose from a significant and final Q and A between the disciples and Jesus before He left Earth. In that exchange, Jesus clearly confirmed the disciples' notion inherent in their question: That the kingdom would be restored to Israel someday and that Jesus would do it personally. No other conclusion can come from His answer. Yet, its obvious implication was denied by Emile by redirection of the argument and evasion of the exact question I posed. No attempt of mine was successful in eliciting the simple answer that the text demands.
This exchange between Jesus and the disciples contains no dark or veiled language. Any reader may examine it on its face value.
v.6 "Lord, will you at this time restore (Gr. "apokathistēmi," double compound, to restore to its former state) the kingdom to Israel?"
v.7 "It is not for you to know the times and epochs that the Father has placed in His Authority,"
What was left in the disciples' minds? What is left in the reader's mind? That the kingdom would eventually be restored to Israel, as per the question. Even if the disciples had a misinformed notion concerning the future disposition of Israel, Jesus certainly did not! They were simply not to know when it would happen. Period.
This conclusion does not stand alone. Numerous Scriptures (too many to name here) form a huge foundation for the doctrine of the return of the kingdom to Israel. It takes no Babylonian Talmud to arrive at this. Only if one switches the terms -- arbitrarily, for the sake of the bias -- i.e. "Church" for "Israel" in nearly all "necessary" instances can Emile's position thrive; but only if one avoids such verses as Acts 1:6 and 7.
This lack of response is intellectually dishonest. It implies a prejudice too strong to overcome for the
sake of truth. In Emile's posts, I was accused (as well as many others here) of being poisoned by a Talmudic teaching that had found its way insidiously into modern Christian eschatology. Emile works feverishly to rid us all of this "evil notion." That could certainly be a noble work, but only if truth is pursued without prejudice. But, that is not what I found in my exchanges with him. What is now revealed through this simple text, is that the foundation of Emile's obsession is fatally cracked. The clear language of Acts 1:6,7 will stand when Emile's misunderstandings of Scripture have faded into dust.
I will not weary this thread with another round of exchanges about the issue. I wish only to state my reaction to the earlier one.
Thank you.
Stan |
