Biblical, Old Testament Experts? Question, Re Pat Robertson.

[Galahad]

I agree with your statement as far as it goes. But I do not think that anyone that reads both the Old Testament and the New Testament and believes that Jesus is the Son of God and who has any kind of prayer life could believe as Rev. Robertson stated. That just seems impossible to harmonize. It's not a matter of being politically correct - it's a matter of being theologically correct

From a Christian theological standpoint (given that we'll take PR "seriously" for a moment) I think this is abolutely correct.

 

[Mom2be]

I have been reading through the OT for the past month or so now and it records numerous instances where a prophet of God said things that rulers, priests, intelligentsia, and just average folks didn't like hearing. At times, these folks set out to kill certain prophets because of what they were saying. It's pretty clear to me that there were instances where God dealt with people, sometimes the rulers, when they disobeyed God's ordinances.

Now, with that said, I don't recall Pat Robertson ever saying he was a prophet of God. Nor can I say with certainty that he isn't a prophet of God. He may well be, but I doubt it.

But, I see nothing inherrently wrong with Pat Robertson making the kind of statement he made if it is based on his understanding of the Bible. His interpretation could be utterly wrong, but it could also be precisely correct. Did he say something that was politically incorrect, maybe insensitive, and maybe even ill oonceived. Well if ask the leading experts, intellegentsia, rulers, priests, and many of the common man, yep her sure did step on it.

Never the less, I can see where someone reading the OT could form a similar conclusion to the one Pat Robetson articulated.

The problem today is that too few people have even a passing knowledge of the Bible and thus when they are confronted with an interpretation that they don't like, or understand, they get upset and rail against the person making the comments.

Do I think Pat's analysis is correct....................I simply don't know and frankly neither does anyone else.[/QUOTE]

But neither does he. And that is the problem because good old Pat speaks as though it is fact and not huge speculation.

~Amanda

 

[DawnCt1]

So if Sharon had not given away land, how long would he live? 100? 115? People die every day, even if they are doing God's will. People even die WHILE they are doing God's will...consider the martyrs through the ages.

If Sharon had not given land away, he may have given Israel away. For Israel to remain a religious, Jewish state they have to maintain a Jewish majority. It isn't hard to envision how Palestineans, integrated into the country of Israel and given the right to vote would soon vote out out a Jewish state.

 

[gometros]

But neither does he. And that is the problem because good old Pat speaks as though it is fact and not huge speculation.

~Amanda

And that is exactly Pat Robertson's problem. I don't know which version of the Book of Yoel he was reading. The version in the New Testamament is different from the one in the original Tanach. Regardless, Robertson's premiss is based on a false assumption. Gaza was not a part of the lands that G-d gave to the Israelites. It was one of the 5 Philistine terrotories that didn't become a part of Israel until it was conquered in 150 BCE, by the Maccabees.

 

[DawnCt1]

Still hard at it, huh Dawn?

No, If I wanted to debate Pat Robertson, I would have made a declarative statement. I was making an inquiry. You should know me well enough by now to know that I am direct.

 

[bcvillastwo]

Sodaseller, I completely agree that being theologically correct is most important but what is and isn't theologically correct has been heavily disputed for over 2000 years. If that were not so we wouldn't have so many divisions in the Christian church today. How many different protestant churches do we have? Why there are two, sometimes three divisions of each major protestant church. Then there are the Catholics, the Coptics, and the Greek Orthodox. So, tell me who has the market cornered on what is/is not theologically correct.

Which brings me back to the point I made earlier--who's to say whether PR is correct or incorrect. Does anyone truely know? Yes, we can make an educated guess based on out understanding of what is/isn't theologically correct but in truth we may just be incorrect.

As I recall when Jesus was alive on of the common beliefs was that the Son of God had come to break the yolk of Rome and rule Israel as their king. But, it didn't happen that way according to my understanding.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Do I think Pat's analysis is correct....................I simply don't know and frankly neither does anyone else.

Sorry, but there are many scholars who will contradict PR's wretched interpretation of the book of Joel. PR's hermeneutics are questionable at best based on his ripping two verses completely out of context from Joel to justify his comments about Ariel Sharon. I've done some searching today through numerous commentaries on Joel and cannot find a single one that would remotely support PR's use of those or any verse from Joel to support his contention that God will smite anyone who gives away land in Israel.

Is PR's analysis wrong? Without a shadow of a doubt, YES.

 

[DawnCt1]

Dawn, it seems to me you are again trying to find some justification for this man's actions. You did it on the Hugo Chavez thread a while back, and you are doing it again here. Why you find the need to defend this man, I'll never know. Whatever credibility, if any, he once had is long gone. I think it's fair to say most Christians on this board shake their heads in disbelief at the things PR says. Let it go.

A couple of things; First of all, the only time I see or hear about Pat Robertson is when he makes a statement that makes the news. Most of the time, he is well below my radar.
Secondly, anything negative that anyone says about Hugo Chavez is just fine with me. If he got sucked off of the planet today, I would say goodbye to bad rubbish.
Thirdly, Sharon did what was right for Israel, not just for the Palastineans, so I think that Sharon made a correct decision.
Forthly, I wanted to know what Biblical passage PR was basing his comments on.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I agree with your statement as far as it goes. But I do not think that anyone that reads both the Old Testament and the New Testament and believes that Jesus is the Son of God and who has any kind of prayer life could believe as Rev. Robertson stated. That just seems impossible to harmonize. It's not a matter of being politically correct - it's a matter of being theologically correct

The horrific screeching sound you just heard was the world crashing to a halt. Why? I am in complete agreement with sodaseller's post. (SS, mark this day on your calendar. It's is a rare occurance that surely will be studied for decades! )

 

[eclectics]

A couple of things; First of all, the only time I see or hear about Pat Robertson is when he makes a statement that makes the news. Most of the time, he is well below my radar.
Secondly, anything negative that anyone says about Hugo Chavez is just fine with me. If he got sucked off of the planet today, I would say goodbye to bad rubbish.
Thirdly, Sharon did what was right for Israel, not just for the Palastineans, so I think that Sharon made a correct decision.
Forthly, I wanted to know what Biblical passage PR was basing his comments on.

If I misunderstood the intentions of your biblical inquiry, I apologize. You defended PR's comments regarding Chavez and from the tone of your post, it appeared you were defending him again (which is totally your right to do if you so choose). Just as I have the right to believe he is a looney tune and voice my disagreement with anyone who defends him.

 

[DawnCt1]

If I misunderstood the intentions of your biblical inquiry, I apologize. You defended PR's comments regarding Chavez and from the tone of your post, it appeared you were defending him again (which is totally your right to do if you so choose). Just as I have the right to believe he is a looney tune and voice my disagreement with anyone who defends him.

No need for an apology. I just wanted to clarify that I was simply asking a question.

 

[sodaseller]

Sodaseller, I completely agree that being theologically correct is most important but what is and isn't theologically correct has been heavily disputed for over 2000 years. If that were not so we wouldn't have so many divisions in the Christian church today. How many different protestant churches do we have? Why there are two, sometimes three divisions of each major protestant church. Then there are the Catholics, the Coptics, and the Greek Orthodox. So, tell me who has the market cornered on what is/is not theologically correct.

Which brings me back to the point I made earlier--who's to say whether PR is correct or incorrect. Does anyone truely know? Yes, we can make an educated guess based on out understanding of what is/isn't theologically correct but in truth we may just be incorrect.

As I recall when Jesus was alive on of the common beliefs was that the Son of God had come to break the yolk of Rome and rule Israel as their king. But, it didn't happen that way according to my understanding.

I would never suggest that theology is easy. In fact, I think it's impossible - His ways are not ours, and by definition are not knowable by us. Nor would I ever suggest that one Christian denomination is uniquely able to Divine Truth. I am Roman Catholic and that is the faith tradition that my inner life leads me to, but there is no doubt in my mind, with all the certainty I can muster for any matter, including my belief in God, that I have met people of other faith traditions, including those close to that of Rev. Robertson, that are filled with the Spirit. It's a conundrum I cannot harmonize.

But if no denomination can be held to hold Truth inviolate over all others, certainly we agree on some things, such as the fact that the Man/God that walked the earth 2000 years ago by the human name of Jesus (or Yeshua, to be more correct), from Nazareth, was the fullness of Revelation. Put simpler, WWJD?

And I find it impossible to reconcile belief in Jesus and in his teachings, as revealed to us though the full Bible, with believing that God struck down PM Sharon for "dividing" his land. Certainly we never rely on the OT alone - if that were the fullness of Divine Revelation, the Incarnation would have been unnecessary.

At the most basic level, Christ (and his Church) taught us that God was the God for all humanity and all the Earth, not a tribe or twelve, or a certain land. I don't mean that to suggest that the Hebrews do not hold a special covenant with God - to suggest otherwise would negate all of the revelation of their special covenant. Another conundrum beyond human understanding, IMO.

But again, if you believe in Jesus as Christ, as Godhead, I don't see how you can believe that a certain land is favored, especially to the point that God will kill those that interfere with that special deed. Really, that's a "concept" that Mohammed thought the "prophet" Jesus had all wrong - there is a certain Divine Land given to believers that the unfaithful (infidels) may not reside upon or suffer God's wrath. Which is why Rev. Robertson and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sound so much alike on this issue. Both are speaking outside of the understanding of God that Christ's Church brought about - that the Triune God is the God of all humanity - loving all of humanity and created in His image.

 

[ead79]

God may be smiting people all the time now...but who is to say who is "smitten" and who just dies because they are old?

So if Sharon had not given away land, how long would he live? 100? 115? People die every day, even if they are doing God's will. People even die WHILE they are doing God's will...consider the martyrs through the ages.

My thoughts exactly. I’m just not sure how Pat Robertson thinks he knows the very mind of God all the time.

 

[gometros]

Thirdly, Sharon did what was right for Israel, not just for the Palastineans, so I think that Sharon made a correct decision.

This may be one of the few times I agree with you. However, that may be explained by the fact that when it come to Israel, I tend to me somewhat right of center.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I would never suggest that theology is easy. In fact, I think it's impossible - His ways are not ours, and by definition are not knowable by us. Nor would I ever suggest that one Christian denomination is uniquely able to Divine Truth. I am Roman Catholic and that is the faith tradition that my inner life leads me to, but there is no doubt in my mind, with all the certainty I can muster for any matter, including my belief in God, that I have met people of other faith traditions, including those close to that of Rev. Robertson, that are filled with the Spirit. It's a conundrum I cannot harmonize.

But if no denomination can be held to hold Truth inviolate over all others, certainly we agree on some things, such as the fact that the Man/God that walked the earth 2000 years ago by the human name of Jesus (or Yeshua, to be more correct), from Nazareth, was the fullness of Revelation. Put simpler, WWJD?

And I find it impossible to reconcile belief in Jesus and in his teachings, as revealed to us though the full Bible, with believing that God struck down PM Sharon for "dividing" his land. Certainly we never rely on the OT alone - if that were the fullness of Divine Revelation, the Incarnation would have been unnecessary.

At the most basic level, Christ (and his Church) taught us that God was the God for all humanity and all the Earth, not a tribe or twelve, or a certain land. I don't mean that to suggest that the Hebrews do not hold a special covenant with God - to suggest otherwise would negate all of the revelation of their special covenant. Another conundrum beyond human understanding, IMO.

But again, if you believe in Jesus as Christ, as Godhead, I don't see how you can believe that a certain land is favored, especially to the point that God will kill those that interfere with that special deed. Really, that's a "concept" that Mohammed thought the "prophet" Jesus had all wrong - there is a certain Divine Land given to believers that the unfaithful (infidels) may not reside upon or suffer God's wrath. Which is why Rev. Robertson and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sound so much alike on this issue. Both are speaking outside of the understanding of God that Christ's Church brought about - that the Triune God is the God of all humanity - loving all of humanity and created in His image.

Couldn't have said it better!

Just to add, I've listened to PR off and on for more years than I care to admit. I've never been able to pin down what biblical hermeneutic he follows. He seems in most occasions to favor the dispensation school of interpretation, but in cases like this the only explanation is that he jumped into the Breach principle (interpretation of a certain verse or passage in Scripture is aided by a consideration of certain breaches, either breaches of promise or breaches of time), but even that doesn't explain why he would take a book that most Christians believe is primarily prophetic and directed toward the world in general and make an application of 2 verses from it to a single individual. It's almost as if he's come up with some new method of interpretation that defies evangelical/conservative thought.

Beyond this, in this instance as in others, PR ignored what most call the Golden Rule of hermeneutics: If the meaning is clear, there is no need for further interpretation. Admittedly, the book of Joel as prophecy is not immediately clear and does require careful exegesis. And careful exegesis does not rip a verse out of its context, ignoring the "big picture" the author is trying to communicate, to justify commentary on a current event. That is simply not proper use of the Scriptures.

 

[bcvillastwo]

I don't see how you can believe that a certain land is favored, especially to the point that God will kill those that interfere with that special deed.

On this point we are going to have to disagree. Based on my understanding of the Bible it's clear to me that the land God gave to Abraham was given to Abraham and his decendents for ever.

Now, I can't cite you the exact layout of that particular land mass but I know there is such a landmass. That landmass, as someone earlier said, may not include the land the PR vs. Areil Sharon gave back to the Palestinians which could mean the PR is all wet, but Israel has been promised it would some day return to the land God promised Abraham, etc.