Oh, sorry, it was your second post. And so your position seems to be, "Do unto others what they did unto you." :eek:
An Open and Shut Case, Revelation 22 & Daniel 12
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by asterisktom, Dec 11, 2017.
Page 2 of 3
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
As for "symbolic," every literal interpreter recognizes figures of speech (symbolic language) in the Bible, and interprets it as such.
(We have an American saying, "Don't teach your grandma to suck eggs." :)) -
It lumps all who believe in a future in which unfulfilled prophecy will be filled.
With that lump, inevitably is this attempt to discredit "Darby" as if he were some nut case.
Amazingly, I have not encountered a single person that would desire to discredit Darby that has actually extensively read what he wrote.
I get that from the post, above, also. The regurgitation assumptions from someone who has no true extensive reading to show proof.
Here is a challenge.
Find first hand statements and writing from Darby and use those quotes to disprove his views.
Until a few months ago, I admittedly had not read much of his work, but since have spent days speed reading through great sections. Frankly, from what I have read there is little that is not doctrinally unsound.
But the other matter that those who lump into the term "futurism" is that there are those (as myself) who are NOT Darby dispensationalists.
We may use "dispensations" as a way to outline the Scriptures, as a tool to of historical event happening, but we are not "Darby dispensational." We may not even "dispense" the divisions as "Darby" did. We use the term in the way of social/political/economic/and religious practice changes in history and not in manner a statement of purpose of salvation.
We believe in the bride of Christ enjoying the reunion dinner provided in the current heaven with the Lord.
We believe in a literal bodily return of Christ.
We believe in a literal shackling of Satan for 1000 years.
We believe in a liter Christ rule of 1000 years on this earth at the City in which David ruled.
We believe in a final bloodless uprising.
We believe in a final judgment before the Creator God.
We believe in an eternal Lake of Fire for all unbelievers and a new heaven an new earth for the redeemed.
We believe that there is no sun or moon for the light is provided by the very presence of God.
We believe that there is no temple in that place for the very presence of God is there.
We believe that He will wipe away all tears at that place.
I am believe in a future hope, because that is the Bible teaching.
Christ did not return in 70AD and leave behind Apostles. (see post above).
Christ did not return in 70AD and it is a lie propagated from the RCC just as ungodly as all their other lies.
Why any believer would place their agreement with such a lie is a demonstration of the power of the deceiver and his use of deception.
Truly, he was a liar from the beginning. -
-
ALL other views were developed after a determined rejection of the premillennial view. In all views that result, there is not a single one that was not first propagated by the papists, and not established to place doubt upon the authority of the Scriptures. ONLY the premillennial view stands alone as separate and distinct from such.
The premillennial view was first and is the most closely aligned with the most literal rendering of prophetic statements concerning the Messiah.
Basic Darby thinking was taking what was already held (the premillennial view) and molding it into what became a popular presentation. The shameful claim that the church is separate from and not grafted into Israel was NOT unfamiliar with the typical teaching of that day, nor of this day.
It is what the typical covenant teachers present, too. Such hold the church as a separate entity from the nation called Israel, that God forever rejected the national Israel.
What Darby showed, was the truth, that the national Israel was not rejected and that prophetic statements concerning the nation of Israel are yet to be fulfilled (some were and are being but in Darby's day were yet to be)
Can anyone actually find a copy of a "chart" Darby may have produced?
I have found many charts, but have never located one that was actually used by Darby.
Not that the charts are inaccurate, but just for the information. -
David Kent Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Preterism is much the same but says they were fulfilled before AD 70
Both have the same overall effect. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
"John of Japan,
\
4 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
or here;
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
-
Could it be there is not much about “the church” in the Revelation given John because the church is watching the events from a place of safety?
Is the church currently in such a place?
Is not prophecy concerning the church shown as victorious?
Is the church currently in this world in other then either persecution or lukewarm?
When (future) will such be the standing of the church as both the bride and victorious?
For to be victorious, one must have a conquest. There is no conquest at the final judgment of the nations, so the conquest must be sometime in the future. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
asterisktom Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
asterisktom Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
asterisktom Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
But hey, as long as you're here, I'll quickly refute your allegation that I ignore the time statements. Look at "quickly," the Greek word taxu. It occurs four times as follows:
Re 3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
Re 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed [is] he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
Re 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward [is] with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
Re 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Now, why do I have no problem with these "time statements"? It's because they are not time statements, but statements of speed, both in the Greek and the English. If we say a basketball player is "quick," we don't mean he'll be right with you, but that he has speed on the basketball court. -
asterisktom Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
"The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John," NIV
"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John," ESV
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John," NASB
Your comment above, John, smacks of desperation.
Any unbiased Bible student - provided one of you guys did not get to him/her first - would understand Rev. 1:1. is speaking of an imminent vent. -
You desire them to be dubious, and therefore that makes them dubious. That is just poor reasoning.
The dates are historically accurate, and the evidence is verifiable by the sciences.
Yet there is not a single historical evidence or verifiable statement that presents your scheme of some return in 70AD is valid. Not a single one!
Two tests of a prophet.
1) ALL the prophet prophesied had to be consistent with previous revelations concerning that prophesied. That is nothing could be contradictory.
2) A sign was always given as to the authority of the prophet (the reason the sign was ask from the Christ by the rulers). If there was no sign, no authority or credence was extended to the prophet.
Your view of prophecy fails because it violates both these principles.
Prophecy is being fulfilled. It is being shown to be accurate, and some mid evil deceitful Jesuit papist who developed a scheme to lie cannot prevent the truth.
But you will continue in the lie, because you desire it to be true.
It is called cognitive dissonance, usually associated with the liars of cults and those that cling to the lies as the truth despite all evidences to the contrary. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Great! You are actually engaging this time instead of quitting in disgust.
Of course you mean "imminent event." And of course all of the events following this verse took place immediately in Ch. 1-3, so I have no problem with the verse.
(Go ahead, you can make more belittling accusations now. :Coffee ) -
Speed, is not always a matter of time, it is also the tempo, a factor of rushing, not date/time setting.
Generally, it is that which is unhindered progress.
Telling my wife I will be back soon, is not a matter of settings on the clock, but the unhindered progress that will be made, the tempo, the rush.
That I will not dilly - dally around and waste her and my time. -
asterisktom Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Gal. 4:22-26
"22. For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman.
23But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise.
24Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.
25Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
26But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother."
Since you prefer the KJV:
"Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar."
And the Greek I am sure you know"
"ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα· αὗται γάρ εἰσιν δύο διαθῆκαι, μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ, εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα, ἥτις ἐστὶν Ἄγαρ, " Nestle
Did the inspired Apostle Paul also get this spiritualiizing/allegorical approach from Philo? -
And when the Scriptures use any figure of speech it is generally shown as being used as a figure of speach.
Just as the quote you showed.
BUT, what the typical lie, of all schemes that deny a literal 2nd coming millennial reign does follow, is making of what is not allegory into an interpretation that must invoke foundations of sand - no substance.
Page 2 of 3