An Open and Shut Case, Revelation 22 & Daniel 12

John of Japan said:

Great! You are actually engaging this time instead of quitting in disgust.

Click to expand...

All I have time for right now. I want to point out some things:
1. Do you not see your own belittling in the above statement? When I don't write for a while there is more often than not a reason - it is not "quitting in disgust" or "running away" (as I believe you said a while back, or words t that effect). I actually have a life. I have now moved to Quito, Ecuador. I have a lot of things to do in order to smooth the transition.

2. Sometimes I do put people on ignore, like I did for you, these few days. I did it because I get tired of the arguing and the condescension that comes from you. You don't even recognize it, even though others have pointed it out to you.

But it is more number 1 than number 2.

I also tire of your mischaracterizations of preterism. You don't understand it and you think you do. A bad combination.

You may think I am being rude, but it is being straightforward. I really don't like mere arguments. But any spirited defenses I make of my position - a position that you hate,as you have told me - may seem argumentative or belittling to you. I really want to have an amicable discussion, but I will not let some of your comments go unchallenged.

asterisktom said:

Once again, John, your hermeneutics are agenda-driven. This is like the fourth time in recent weeks. Your hatred toward preterism (I believe you used that very word) does not seem to allow you to objectively weigh the evidence in Scripture. We saw it in your unbothered reaction to the many and clear time statements. We see it here in your myopic stance on the spiritual or allegorical aspects of Scripture. (And, no, they are not strictly synonyms.)

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?

Click to expand...

You are making a basic error in linguistics. Simply because the English word "allegory" has as it's origin the Greek word allegoreo does not mean that the Greek word means "allegory." You are anachronizing--putting the modern English meaning back into the Koine Greek of the 1st century. You are grasping at straws.

Now, Paul's method in this passage was to take an historical event and make it into a type. I have no problems with typology when correctly used, and the church fathers used it often. However, what preterists do is take non-historical statements in the Bible and allegorize them. That is a far cry from what Paul did in Gal. 4. A type is a figure of speech, not a different method of interpretation.

agedman said:

Yes!!

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.

Click to expand...

So, only if the Bible explicitly says something is X (whatever it might be) then we have to assume that it is not X. Oh, that is a serious straitjacket you impose on Scripture, taking away the didactic edge of God's instruction.

We deny all miracles in the Bible unless they are explicitly stated as such?
We deny all prophesies in the Bible unless they are explicitly stated as such?
We deny all promises in the Bible unless they are explicitly stated as such?

Do you not see where this leads?

John of Japan said:

You are making a basic error in linguistics. Simply because the English word "allegory" has as it's origin the Greek word allegoreo does not mean that the Greek word means "allegory." You are anachronizing--putting the modern English meaning back into the Koine Greek of the 1st century. You are grasping at straws.

Click to expand...

You are focusing on the lesser point (though on that I disagree too). I quoted the whole passage to show his (supposedly Philo-taught) approach to Scripture. Look at the details of the passage. This is spiritualizing in action.

asterisktom said:

You are focusing on the lesser point (though on that I disagree too). I quoted the whole passage to show his (supposedly Philo-taught) approach to Scripture. Look at the details of the passage. This is spiritualizing in action.

Click to expand...

No, it's typology, not spiritualizing. When you preterists interpret Revelation, you do nothing like what Paul did, interpreting an historical event. You take prophecy, which is not yet historical at the time of its writing, and spiritualize all through the book.

agedman said:

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.

Click to expand...

You value uninspired, Christ-belittling secular sources over Scripture. I am clear on that.

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.

Click to expand...

An evil generation asks for a sign and no sign will be given to them. That principle is in the Bible. Your's is not.

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.

Click to expand...

Oh come on, agedman, how do you really feel about me? Well, never mind. I am going back to ignoring you. I had high hopes for respectful, Scriptural give-and-takes with you, but that was several posts ago.

asterisktom said:

You value uninspired, Christ-belittling secular sources over Scripture. I am clear on that.


An evil generation asks for a sign and no sign will be given to them. That principle is in the Bible. Your's is not.


Oh come on, agedman, how do you really feel about me? Well, never mind. I am going back to ignoring you. I had high hopes for respectful, Scriptural give-and-takes with you, but that was several posts ago.

Click to expand...

Let me take a moment and again state that what I have discerned in the threads is not something unusual, but a recognizable condition that is typically found among those that believe a lie no matter the efforts of showing the truth.

One may show by the manner of denial that cognitively truth cannot be accepted as the truth no matter what is presented. It is an actual psychological phenomena.

If one allowed acceptance of what was long ago rejected, at first it would only bring embarrassment, but continued and repeated rejection of the truth creates a dissonance to the truth that such acceptance cannot even be considered.

One of the evidences of the condition is to ignore folks and blame the person ignored has caused the action to ignore claiming it is because of disrespect, or stage of denial, transference, or some other protection obliged by embracing a lie.

Yet, anyone that has dealt with the mindset of the condition as displayed recognizes that such an ignoring is merely one of the avoidance mechanisms used by those who cannot embrace the truth even when repeatedly shown and is evidently shown as truth.

In the threads:


In EVERY case the truth was able to be validated and not some "private interpretation." Yet, it was rejected.

So, ignoring is merely another indicator of rejecting truth.

Look up cognitive dissonance, and read what is displayed.

Now should anyone consider that I am condemning, not true. I am merely showing that the condition as it is manifested.

Here is my own accountability standard so that none make the assumption I am claiming authority not warranted.

My accountability standard is pretty well known by those who are skilled in the use of languages on the BB, so anyone following who is new will be informed here it is:

Generally, I submit to the skilled work of those who know and teach the languages. I no longer am willing to trust my own work in the languages without having someone to look it over. My mind is no longer quick, and focus is often very difficult to maintain.

Therefore, at any time I am shown to have rendered a passage incorrectly, or applied what is inappropriate, I have great desire for those who are knowledgeable to correct me. "I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ" and I want to make certain that I do not run in vain in using the Scriptures.

Now that doesn't mean I may not push back at the correction, but such is done not in rejection but to validate the parameters of application and truthfulness.

agedman said:

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.

Click to expand...

1. Only the martyrs are in seen heaven, and were waiting for those who would soon follow them.
2. The martyrs were victorious over their enemies, who would be in Hell, the Martyrs in Heaven.
3. I don't understand the question. Throughout the world the the church is undergoing intense tribulation in N Korea, many Islamic lands, and parts of china, India.
4. I don't understand the question.

John of Japan said:

Are you asking me or telling me??

Click to expand...

Hello John,
Just checking as you made it sound as if you understand that sometimes what looks like it was going to be a literal fulfillment as in Amos 9
was interpreted in a literal manner....evidently with a spiritual rather than physical fulfillment. here in Acts
Do you see it as fulfilled in this way by the Apostles,
[I do not believe they were speaking of a literal tabernacle that has an address]
or.....is this something else going on here in these texts?

Iconoclast said:

Hello John,
Just checking as you made it sound as if you understand that sometimes what looks like it was going to be a literal fulfillment as in Amos 9
was interpreted in a literal manner....evidently with a spiritual rather than physical fulfillment. here in Acts
Do you see it as fulfilled in this way by the Apostles,

[I do not believe they were speaking of a literal tabernacle that has an address]
or.....is this something else going on here in these texts?

Click to expand...

Are you talking about Amos 9:11? If so, this is the Hebrew word cukkah, usually translated "booth." A different word from the tabernacle in the day of Moses, It is a word for a temporary dwelling. So I see no conflict with Acts 15:16, where the prophecy if fulfilled as a metaphor (not "spiritually").

asterisktom said:

You value uninspired, Christ-belittling secular sources over Scripture. I am clear on that.

Click to expand...

That's true of preterists.

An evil generation asks for a sign and no sign will be given to them. That principle is in the Bible. Your's is not.

Click to expand...

The sign will be when the prophesied events start occurring, beginning with the coming of the "man of sin".

Oh come on, agedman, how do you really feel about me? Well, never mind. I am going back to ignoring you. I had high hopes for respectful, Scriptural give-and-takes with you, but that was several posts ago.

Click to expand...

Like myself, he knows preterism is false, phony as a Ford Corvette, a totally MAN-MADE doctrine.

And "ignore" is a COWARD'S way out, a tool used by those who can't answer questions nor defend their positions. YOU don't strike me as a coward, so why don't you address his concerns with Scripture & history? After all, the ONLY POSSIBLE defense for preterism is to **PROVE** the prophesied events have already occurred.

Iconoclast said:

Hello John,
Just checking as you made it sound as if you understand that sometimes what looks like it was going to be a literal fulfillment as in Amos 9
was interpreted in a literal manner....evidently with a spiritual rather than physical fulfillment. here in Acts
Do you see it as fulfilled in this way by the Apostles,
[I do not believe they were speaking of a literal tabernacle that has an address]
or.....is this something else going on here in these texts?

Click to expand...

John of Japan said:

Are you talking about Amos 9:11? If so, this is the Hebrew word cukkah, usually translated "booth." A different word from the tabernacle in the day of Moses, It is a word for a temporary dwelling. So I see no conflict with Acts 15:16, where the prophecy if fulfilled as a metaphor (not "spiritually").

Click to expand...

Yes, John, tabernacle - Strong's H5521 - normally refers to the feast of booths rather than the Tabernacle.

However James rewords Amos' prophecy so he shows an inspired understanding relating to the call & inclusion of the Gentiles.

How does James' interpretation - revision - of Amos' prophecy fit the grammatical historical method?

John of Japan said:

Are you talking about Amos 9:11? If so, this is the Hebrew word cukkah, usually translated "booth." A different word from the tabernacle in the day of Moses, It is a word for a temporary dwelling. So I see no conflict with Acts 15:16, where the prophecy if fulfilled as a metaphor (not "spiritually").

Click to expand...

I believe the cukkah of David in Amos refers to his DYNASTY. Since david's dynasty still ruled Judah while Amos was active, he was either referring to the then-coming time when it wouldn't rule Judah, or the fact that david's dynasty no longer uoled most of the Israelis. (God had left David's dynasty ruling over the Jews to keep His promise that a descendant of David's would always be ruling over at least some Israelis.

As we know, the WELL-KNOWN rule of David's dynasty came to an end with the fall of Zedekiah & God's ruling out Coniah & his posterity from occupying David's throne. But, GOD'S PROMISE STANDS! God re-iterated His promise to David in Jeremiah 33, not long before Zedekiah fell, I believe, for the purpose of assuring Jeremiah & other faithful people Zed's end was NOT the end of David's dynasty.

Some of you have likely read Herbie Armstrong's convoluted "take" on history that says the KING'S DAUGHTERS who were among the jewish captives forced into Egypt in Jeremiah 43 were taken somewhere by Jerry. Armstrong said they were taken to what's now Ireland, where one met & married the ruler of that land, who, Herbie said, was a descendant of David's, as Dave had many sons whom he loaded with treasure & sent away so there'd be nowar of succession after Dave's death. That story may or may not be true, but I DO believe that somewhere, a descendant of David's is ruling over Israelis, even though they don't know their true identities. I BELIEVE THAT FROM GOD'S WORD, INCLUDING HIS PROMISES OF AN ETERNAL UNINTERRUPTED DYNASTY TO DAVID.

Speaking of Daniel 12, I started a new thread on Daniel 12:4, which is obviously, undeniably being fulfilled right now, with the explosion of knowledge & travel. Hard to believe some people are trying to say it means something else. they obviously got their view from old commentaries written before the tech age began. (Example: that of Matthew Henry)

And I recommend any study of Daniel 12 include a study of Daniel 9 & 11 as well.

Covenanter said:

Yes, John, tabernacle - Strong's H5521 - normally refers to the feast of booths rather than the Tabernacle.

However James rewords Amos' prophecy so he shows an inspired understanding relating to the call & inclusion of the Gentiles.

Acts 15:14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
16 ‘After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the Lord who does all these things.’

Amos 9:12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom,
And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,”
Says the Lord who does this thing.
And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,”
Says the Lord who does this thing.
​

How does James' interpretation - revision - of Amos' prophecy fit the grammatical historical method?

Click to expand...

Did not the called Gentiles become believers without the need of becoming Jews?

James did not revise, but (imo) paraphrased Amos, leaving out the descendants of Esau because the matter at hand was not them but the Gentiles.

There is no conflict as one might attempt to construct, is there?

asterisktom said:

The "soon", "the time is at hand", and "shortly" references in Revelation are often dismissed by futurists as "soon in God's time", that is "a day is as a thousand years". But this is to miss the point both of the Peter verse and the soon passages in Revelation.

The point in Peter is that God is faithful in all His promises, whether is scheduled to happen the next day or in a thousand years. The point is not that God uses a special meaning for "soon".

Click to expand...

Agreed. Last year when recommending a mini-commentary on 2nd Peter I wrote:

Pastor and theological writer Peter J. Leithart has written a short (111 pages) non-technical commentary on the New Testament Epistle of 2nd Peter.

He shows with deft ease and logic how the book of 2nd Peter requires a 1st century fulfillment of its subject matter. One way he does this is by comparing and contrasting 2nd Peter with 1st Peter, and showing how 1st Peter requires a 1st century fulfillment.
Therefore, if 1st and 2nd Peter are from the same author, written to the same people, then 2nd Peter ought to be understood to be contextually continuing many of the same themes.

IOW, if commentators argue that 1st Peter is written for the immediate benefit of the first century Church, but 2nd Peter was written not as immediately relevant to the first century Church, then they would be contextually separated from one another. The 2nd having little to do with the 1st.

Thus, Leithart provides a great service by culling the better relevant commentaries and noting where they recognize much of the contextual continuity. He then notes where those commentaries demur from the continuity, and make parts of 2nd Peter "futuristic".

He then shows how that futuristic discontinuity is disruptive to the first century consciousness of the 1st Peter narrative, and a preteristic understanding of 2nd Peter makes 2nd Peter more harmonious with 1st Peter.

This has tremendous implications for how chapter 3 of 2nd Peter (particularly, and especially) ought to be interpreted. Leithart's treatment of 2nd Peter brings the understanding more in line with a preteristic perspective on the New Testament generally.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Promise-His-A...r_1_22?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1444398352&sr=1-22">The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter</a>

Thus, merely because something took a long time in human time before doesn't mean something will take a long time when God reveals it is near.