There are two fundamental ways to view history. We call one the catastrophic or accidental view of history. We call the other view the conspiratorial view of history......................
~Ralph Epperson, author of The Unseen Hand
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Ron Hall, host of On The Warning Track, offers his perspective which questions, and refutes, Christian-Zionism today, and seeks TRUTH by looking at the early history of Christianity and making comparisons.
First of all, thanks for your thought provoking comment/question/observation on the Podbean website! And yes this is just one of many theological "knots" that I've been trying to untie for many years. But to your point on what I said in one of my programs about "God using the Romans to destroy the Jews". Immediately when I read your comment, I knew you were right, but I didn't mean to imply that God made the Romans destroy the Jews as if he was playing some kind of cosmic chess game. But that's kind of the way I put it. So I consider myself corrected and in the future I plan to be a little less cavalier about what I say.
To be honest with you, the way I view the destruction of Jerusalem is more or less God pouring out his judgement by allowing the Romans to excersise their own freedom of choice in the matter. From reading Matt. 23-25 and other parallel texts, Jesus knew (a head of time) that Jerusalem was going to be destroyed before that generation ended. If he knew that, then he probably knew that the Jews were going to choose to reject him and that the Romans were coming in the future. He also obviouly knew that the death and destruction was going to be tremendous. In reality, the carnage was the result of their (Jews) rejection of Jesus. Who knows what would have happened if they had excepted him. Futhermore, I don't think the Romans got off the hook for the killing that they did. I believe they still had/have to answer for their own actions. After all, Gods' law is emphatic "thou shalt not kill" PERIOD. I'm thinking that Matt.18:7 might apply here: "Woe to the world because of offenses! For it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense comes."
I haven't spent much time yet talking about my views on the use of the Old Testament as a moral compass, but I'll give you a little heads up on what you're going to hear in the future. Many times Jesus quotes "Old" Testament scriptures and tells us to do something totally different than what "them of old" told us to do. Christians for the most part refuse to see this distinction. I personally believe that if Jesus had some problems with the "Old" testament then we should follow his lead. The way that I approach the Old Testament is to take the light of Jesus' teachings and shine it on the Old Testament, if something obviously conflicts with Jesus-- I go with Jesus! After all, I'm a Christian.
Thanks again for your feed back, YOUR BLOG IS GREAT.
1 comment:
Deborah,
First of all, thanks for your thought provoking comment/question/observation on the Podbean website! And yes this is just one of many theological "knots" that I've been trying to untie for many years. But to your point on what I said in one of my programs about "God using the Romans to destroy the Jews". Immediately when I read your comment, I knew you were right, but I didn't mean to imply that God made the Romans destroy the Jews as if he was playing some kind of cosmic chess game. But that's kind of the way I put it. So I consider myself corrected and in the future I plan to be a little less cavalier about what I say.
To be honest with you, the way I view the destruction of Jerusalem is more or less God pouring out his judgement by allowing the Romans to excersise their own freedom of choice in the matter. From reading Matt. 23-25 and other parallel texts, Jesus knew (a head of time) that Jerusalem was going to be destroyed before that generation ended. If he knew that, then he probably knew that the Jews were going to choose to reject him and that the Romans were coming in the future. He also obviouly knew that the death and destruction was going to be tremendous. In reality, the carnage was the result of their (Jews) rejection of Jesus. Who knows what would have happened if they had excepted him. Futhermore, I don't think the Romans got off the hook for the killing that they did. I believe they still had/have to answer for their own actions. After all, Gods' law is emphatic "thou shalt not kill" PERIOD. I'm thinking that Matt.18:7 might apply here: "Woe to the world because of offenses! For it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense comes."
I haven't spent much time yet talking about my views on the use of the Old Testament as a moral compass, but I'll give you a little heads up on what you're going to hear in the future. Many times Jesus quotes "Old" Testament scriptures and tells us to do something totally different than what "them of old" told us to do. Christians for the most part refuse to see this distinction. I personally believe that if Jesus had some problems with the "Old" testament then we should follow his lead. The way that I approach the Old Testament is to take the light of Jesus' teachings and shine it on the Old Testament, if something obviously conflicts with Jesus-- I go with Jesus! After all, I'm a Christian.
Thanks again for your feed back, YOUR BLOG IS GREAT.
Ron Hall
Post a Comment