Doug, The Arabs and Mexicans and Japanese are nothing but humaity apart from their ethnicity. All men are cursed as you well know. Jews are not particularly and singularly cursed and Jews can be saved and will be saved as well as any other ethnic people as God so decrees and has promised His Son in Ps. 2 for example.. We know God could just have well chosen the Babylonians to be His historic (not salvivific) chosen people to fulfill His redemptive purposes so in the end they would have suffered the "curse" to which you allude. I have worked cross culturally for all my years as a Christian. I have shepherded multi ethnic churchces in the inner city and suburbs and have worked for over 20 years with hard core street folk in Buffalo NY. I have worked in Eastern Europe among the Poles, Romanians, and Ukranians and the gypsies in the streets of Polish cities as well as many Jewsish folk. All are guilty and cursed. Perhaps the key element here is if "NCT" and it's hermeneutic in the overall sees picture/fulfillment through the logical priority of the New Testamnet scripture, then there does seem to be a "flow" toward the lack of a need for a literal post church kingdom for a specific people. I'm with Moe on the end times curve. I need NCT first to make clear to me how to live now and how to encourage and teach others in the now how the beauty of our New covenant, Christ our Lord, is our all sufficiency and yet, not to the dismissal of eschatogical things (especially since the now/not yet is crucially linked to eschatology). Do I need be dogmatic with eschatology to validate NCT? Have you read Steve's Lehrer's NCT book? He does a nice job with using Acts 15 and James' use of Amos 9 to illustrate a NT intepretation of an OT text while keeping the OT language regarding how Isreal restored is the church of Jew and Gentile according to James. Joe On Sep 30, 2006, at 7:33 AM, Doug Skiles wrote: > Dear Mr. Reisinger, > My comments follow the ** >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: John Reisinger >> To: soundofgrace@... >> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 11:18 AM >> Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Regarding the legitimacy of "inferences" >> >> John wrote:Doug: I don't think GNC is involved in the interpretation >> of parables. I always thought that a parable only had one lesson >> unless the one giving the parable specifically gave meaning to more >> than one thing in the parable. Example: The parable of the 10 >> virgins can only be used to teach "watch and be ready." Virgins, >> ten, midnight, oil, etc. are all incidental with no specific >> significance. Example #2: The parable of the Sower. Our Lord gave >> special meaning to many parts of the that parable. Only the giver of >> a parable can do that legitimately. >> >> Spiritualizing, in any sense, is out of bounds. >> ** In my comments regarding parable interpretation, I was linking >> hermeneutical evaluation as well. So, I take it that you have >> also changed your mind that "spiritualizing" eschatology is >> likewise, in any sense, out of bounds? : ) I am just being cute, so >> don't be offended. However, I do have one specific question. If one >> thousand years is symbolic, how do we justify elimination of all >> sequential meaning from the text? If I attempted a >> similiar exegetical move with a parable wouldn't you come after my >> interpretation with an axe and say that I was being >> inconsistent, making it fit my own program and making it say >> "something else"? We can say anything that we want if our >> interpretative process is based on identifying mere similiarities of >> detail, rather than on literal content. The fact is, if revelation >> is not based on literal content, then the interpreter is substituting >> his content (explaining) in place of the text, for whatever >> reason. Also, I would like to know why appropriating all the >> promised blessings to "the Church" while relegating all the curses to >> "the Jews" shouldn't be labeled as anti-Semitism? I am not accusing >> you or anyone of this, just wondering, okay? Sincerely, Doug >> Skiles. >> JGR >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Doug Skiles >>> To: soundofgrace@... >>> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 8:09 AM >>> Subject: [soundofgrace] Regarding the legitimacy of "inferences" >>> >>> To those interested, >>> >>> When Jesus gives a meaning to a parable, it is a direct inference >>> from the literal content of the story. No doubt an inventive >>> preacher can do many other things with Jesus' parables using >>> techniques under the guise of the "many applications" gained by >>> "spiritualizing" the text. Then the reader has to decide for >>> himself which of the "applications" is more "spiritual". I know >>> that GNC of parables is not nearly as discussed as with >>> eschatology. But my point is this, guessing should never be an >>> option for the serious-minded concerning hermeneutics, whether it is >>> under the guise of GNC, spiritualizing with multiple applications, >>> or redefining on the basis of "key spiritual principles". These all >>> basically fall under the question, "Did God really say?" or "What >>> the prophets meant to or ought to have said." I know it ain't >>> pretty, but do we want the truth? Sincerely, Doug Skiles. >>> >>> -- >>> Read the Sound of Grace pages at >>> http://www.soundofgrace.com >>> >>> To unsubsc >>> ribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@... >>> >>> To view o >>> ur online archive go to our web page at >>> http://www.associate.com/groups/soun >>> dofgrace >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> = >> -- >> Read the Sound of Grace pages at >> http://www.soundofgrace.com >> >> To unsubsc= >> ribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@... >> >> To view o= >> ur online archive go to our web page at >> http://www.associate.com/groups/soun= >> dofgrace >> >> >> >> >> >> >> = > > -- > Read the Sound of Grace pages at > http://www.soundofgrace.com > > To unsubsc > ribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@... > > To view o > ur online archive go to our web page at > http://www.associate.com/groups/soun > dofgrace > > > > > >