Spiritual Interpretation....pt3

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

One of my favorites. I'll add another, in reference to your use of "ignorant." - - "We are ALL ignorant, just on different subjects."

 

Except that Revelation tells us that a 1/4 of the worlds population will die right before His second coming, just symbolic?

 

Revelation 6::8

 

I take it to be that John saw a vision of what appeared to Him to be an earthquake upon the earth, things in the sky, and that the conditions on the earth were getting so bad that people wanted to hide away from the wrath of the lLord!

 

I answered you with the scriptures. Do you just bounce around from member to member demanding replies to your posts without feeling the obligation to reply to others? Are you searching for meaningful dialogue or just for someone to agree with you? Personally, I do not disagree with your interpretation of the language of Rev. 6.12-17, although I do not interpret it as strictly figurative. I do, however, disagree that the destruction of Jerusalem is under consideration.

 

John used figurative way to speak of a real event, and that was not Ad 70!

 

Actually, what you are suggesting in this post is precisely what is called allegorical interpretation (AI). AI does not necessarily mean interpreting every word with a special meaning, but is pretty much what you are describing. "Allegorical interpretation believes that beneath the letter (rhete) or the obvious (phanera) is the real meaning (hyponoia) off the passage. Allegory is defined by some as an extended metaphor" (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, by Bernard Ramm--not a dispensationalist--p. 24).

I'm really trying to understand. This is the best you've done yet in explaining how you do it.

Now you are taking literally the names of the nations (though a nation is not technically involved in Joseph's dream). After that it looks hazy to me. There must be some literal interpretation for you in each of these prophecies, since somehow the nations are involved in the fulfillment, right? So how do you tell in each case what is and what is not going to be literally fulfilled?

I can give you every step of how Daniel's prophecies of Antiochus III and IV (Dan. 10-11) were fulfilled literally, and thus how we can expect the Antichrist to act as described in the 2nd half of Dan. 11. But your examples leave me thinking your method is pretty hazy.

So after the whole, involved prophecy of Is. 13, all we know is that Babylon will have a change in administration? Is there nothing else in the whole prophecy that is literal?

P. S. I asked you to interpret Idumea for me and you didn't, but you kind of gave an answer in your discussion, so I'll let that pass.

 

If we take this at face value, then NOTHING in revelation actually has any real meaning, for 1/4 of the earth dying is allogory or something?
The beast is not a real person, even though all the world shall worship him?

 

Do you not also believe the Revelation of Jesus Christ concerns the day of the Lord? 1 Th. 4.15-5.10 is quite clear that it is at this time that the Parousia will occur.

 

Good point, and if it was already AD 70. where were the open graves and the resurrection of the saints, surely someone would have noticed and recorded that event?

John told us yto long for and look for the blessed second coming, and wrote that 20 years after he elready had come then?

 

That argument, or any argument for that matter, is futile when debating with Preterists because they have multiple "comings" of the Lord interspersed throughout the New Testament. They are not even in agreement with each other as to which coming is which in certain passages of scripture. When the description of one does not seem to fit, they assign it to the other and vice versa. Their exegesis is very fluid, always changing its shape to fit their system of interpretation.

There is no place in scripture where the churches were ever taught to look for more than one coming of the Lord, and that is directed to both Preterists and Premillennialists of the Dispensational variety equally. Both groups must resort to "types" in order to prove their theories. For example, in the absence of any clear teaching, Rev. 4.1 becomes a "type" of the Rapture for the Dispensationalist who, by the time he reaches the Revelation of Jesus Christ, is utterly desperate to find his doctrine some place in scripture. The Preterists maintain different comings, and the Dispensationalists maintain different phases of the same coming. Both are utterly foreign to the apostles' doctrine.

 

Actually dispensational theology teaches that the Lord's coming for Israel is different from the church on account of it being based off Jewish sermon (mt. 24:20):

"but pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day" (kjv) ​

Christians don't live strictly in Jerusalem/Israel as the Jews will, so they shouldn't have to pray that their flight from Jerusalem doesn't happen on a Jewish sabbath, which Christians don't observe.

Deut. 30:3 also states that God shall "return" after the Jews' great tribulation (verse 1). If God dwells in the church today through us (eph 4:6), that must mean that God departs from the Jews, in order to "return" to them. How else could this happen unless the Church is removed and God's presence among the Jews with her? These views are not a definitive list of pre trib reasons why Jesus raptures the Church first. These views are found in Chafer's Systematic Theology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I am familiar with the arguments that are advanced to support this distinctive feature of Dispensationalism, but again I ask: Where is this to be found in scripture? The abomination of desolation naturally involves the temple and Jerusalem (Mt. 24.15; 2 Th. 2.4). Therefore, the directive to "flee into the mountains" is most appropriate. I also believe the redeemed are in "every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" (Rev. 5.9), but the great tribulation will affect the whole world, not just Judaea.

And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. -Mt. 24.22

The tribulation of those days will be divinely shortened. Otherwise, all flesh, including the elect, will perish. You completely lost me with Deu. 30.3. God only has one people as there is only one olive tree in Romans 11. The Gentiles are graffed in among the Jews into the commonwealth of Israel and are, therefore, no more strangers from the covenants of promise (Eph. 2.12).

And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. -Gal. 3.29

This is more than sufficient to destroy the Dispensational paradigm.

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds (φυλαὶ - tribes) of the earth (γῆ - land) shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. -Rev. 1.7 (cf. Zech. 12.10)

This assumes that the tribes of the land will be in the land. Zechariah 12-14 describes what will happen following the day of the LORD and the culmination of the new covenant when "all Israel shall be saved" (Ro. 11.26). By the way, Zech. 12-14 cannot by any stretch of the imagination be referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century.

 

I seriously doubt that, especially with your further response:

[Insult edited]

Uhhh that's dispensational teaching there bud.

Why do [insult edited] like you constantly pop up and claim that you've read our views? Prejudice got your tongue? If you did read our views, you wouldn't be on here making a complete fool of yourself, claiming that we don't teach what we clearly do teach. And hey, check it out: you're just reiterating what I've already said.

OYour point about the great tribulation affecting the whole world is completely irrelevant by the way.

Maybe try actually reading some dispensational works next time you claim that you do.

A person familiar with dispensationalism would know that dispensationalists teach that the Jews, the gentiles, and the church are three separate entities (1 cor 10:32):

32Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:​

Why does Paul make a distinction between Jews, gentiles and the church if they're the same entities, as you claim?

You mean this is more than sufficient to destroy the straw man you have built.

Again, pick up a dispensational work and learn a thing or two of our view next time, so you don't completely misrepresent our view and turn yourself into a [insult edited].

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I explained why Mt. 24.20 does not necessitate the church being taken out of the world for the command to those in Judaea to flee into the mountains to be applicable. That was one of the points you tried to make in your initial reply to my post. I am still confused about the relevance of the other passage of scripture you referenced.

That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee. -Deu. 30.3

It is not irrelevant that I pointed out that the great tribulation will affect the whole world as there are Preterists who have consistently denied that from the beginning of this thread. That the abomination of desolation involves the temple and Jerusalem is not a distinctive of Dispensationalism because there were Premillennialists affirming that long before Dispensationalism was even an eschatological option.

Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: -1 Cor. 10.32

This is actually irrelevant since Paul explicitly states his reasoning in the next verse:

Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved -1 Cor. 10.33

Read the context:

And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. -1 Cor. 9.20-22

There is nothing here about three distinct groups for which God has three distinct purposes. Jews and Gentiles are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3.28). That is not to say that God does not have a distinct purpose for the Jews, but he certainly does not apart from the church of God. I am aware that Dispensationalists teach the exact opposite, but that only demonstrates that they are at odds with scripture.

God only has one people as there is only one olive tree in Romans 11. The Gentiles are graffed in among the Jews into the commonwealth of Israel and are, therefore, no more strangers from the covenants of promise (Eph. 2.12).

And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. -Gal. 3.29

When "all Israel shall be saved" (Ro. 11.26), God will "graff them in again" (Ro. 11.23); the Israel of God, Jew and Gentile, ONE in Christ Jesus! Please show me how I misrepresented your position. Furthermore, I think name-calling is unnecessary and contrary to Christian charity. I can only pray that your heart is not as repulsive as your attitude.