Apocalyptic as literary genre and interpreting Revelation

[Covenanter]

All of this is meaningless if you can't answer my points: I'll reiterate and clarify.

(1) Where is the historical record of persecution of Jews by Christians after the book of Acts? (I'll grant you James the Just, but that hardly deserves the destruction of Jerusalem.)

God knows. Why do you need a further historical record? The Jewish leaders didn't suddenly repent & turn to God after their assault on Paul.

In any case, AD 70 was prophesied by Jesus in his Olivet prophecy. Moses prophesied judgment on those who refused to hear their Messiah. (Deut. 18:18-19, quoted by Peter in Acts 3)

(2) If there is no such record, why would God destroy Jerusalem for the persecution recorded in the NT? (No one but Stephen was killed for Christ in the NT.) I think your point is insufficient here, since you give nothing but your opinion that their stubbornness, etc., was the reason. Give Scripture for that point, not just Stephen's statement, which promises no judgment.

You assert - (No one but Stephen was killed for Christ in the NT.)

Acts 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. 2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. 3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. ​

The judgment was not just for that persecution, but for their rejection of Messiah, & the Apostles, & prophets down the centuries:

Mat. 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.​

I suggest we can be confident that Jesus' prophecy of persecution would be fulfilled by the Jewish leaders.

(3) The persecution of Christians by Nero was far greater than any by the Jews, even that mentioned in the NT. Why did God not destroy Rome then or judge the Romans in some other way?

The Israelites & Jews had covenant promises from God; Nero had no such promises. And he did not go unpunished.

Hebrews is helpful -

10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.​

Jesus have lived with them for 33 years, & taught them for 3. They had received knowedge of the truth direct from their Messiah. then from the Apostles.

 

[John of Japan]

God knows. Why do you need a further historical record? The Jewish leaders didn't suddenly repent & turn to God after their assault on Paul.

In any case, AD 70 was prophesied by Jesus in his Olivet prophecy. Moses prophesied judgment on those who refused to hear their Messiah. (Deut. 18:18-19, quoted by Peter in Acts 3)

I need a further historical record because we must deal with facts. I agree that AD 70 was prophesied by Jesus in his Olivet Discourse; just not that everything in the discourse was fulfilled in AD 70.

You assert - (No one but Stephen was killed for Christ in the NT.)

Acts 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. 2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. 3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. ​

Thank you for the correction. It doesn't completely answer my point, though. (Just wondering, are you a full preterist or just partial?)

The judgment was not just for that persecution, but for their rejection of Messiah, & the Apostles, & prophets down the centuries:

Mat. 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.​

I suggest we can be confident that Jesus' prophecy of persecution would be fulfilled by the Jewish leaders.

I think we're getting too far from the OP now, and I claim partial blame. Apologies to Jon, the OP author.

The Israelites & Jews had covenant promises from God; Nero had no such promises. And he did not go unpunished.

Hebrews is helpful -

10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.​

The very existence of the book of Hebrews says to me that God still loved the Jews in AD 70. And, "So perhaps we should think of a date near or even during the war of A.D. 66-70)" (Hebrews in EBC, by Leon Morris, p. 8). The destruction of Jerusalem was in punishment, certainly, but also in love to draw the Jews to Himself. It may have been for their persecution, but at this point I think we are well away from the OP about Revelation, so I'm going to stop here.

Jesus have lived with them for 33 years, & taught them for 3. They had received knowedge of the truth direct from their Messiah. then from the Apostles.

And many thousands of Jews became believers.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? I don't think so. That is the whole point of Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

The Jews believed in God the Father, and believed in God the Holy Spirit, but rejected Jesus as God the Son. Paul is telling them "just one thing you lack." Accept Jesus as Lord (I.E. God the Son).

The Jews today believe the same way, they reject one third of the Godhead, God the Son.

That's not the same God.

They worship in ignorance the true God, but still blind to jesus as Messiah, but Islam worships false god altogether!

 

[Yeshua1]

Can you show ONE second coming in the BIBLE ?
A search for "I will come" finds a number of comings after Jesus resurrection:

John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Rev. 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Rev. 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Rev. 3:3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

Rev. 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.​

The "comings" indicate that the risen Lord Jesus comes in various ways & times. After the resurrection appearances, he came to Saul (Acts 9), Stephen (Acts 7), John (Rev. 1)

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.​

When we are born again, we pass from death to life, as we hear & believe the voice of the Son of God. That is NOT the coming for resurrection & judgment:

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.​

The comings that raise questions are:

Mat. 24:30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.​

That is a coming in the lifetime of this generation.

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.​

Also:

Rev. 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.​

Rev 1 - all kindreds of the earth - could be translated as Mat. 24 - all the tribes of the earth - or all the tribes of the land. The context will normally indicate the meaning. As Mat. 24 specifically concerns the destruction of the temple, to take place within a generation, the AD 70 meaning is clear.

So Jesus comes to repentant sinners, by his Spirit, to give us life. He baptises us with the Holy Spirit.

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.​

And he comes at our death to take us to glory:

John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.​

He came in AD 70 to judge the Jews who persistently rejected him.

And he will come finally for general resurrection & judgment at the last day (mistakenly, but commonly called the second coming):

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.​

John/peter/paul ALL told us there that there was to be a Second Coming, and when that happened, all saved would be resurrected up with glorified bodies, so when has that happened?

 

[Yeshua1]

If Jews get that to their credit then so do the Muslims.

How so? the Jews were under the Old Covenant, salvation was of the Jews, so they had the real God, and still call on Him, but deny jesus as the Messiah, while islam from the starth had a false god!

 

[Yeshua1]

I need a further historical record because we must deal with facts. I agree that AD 70 was prophesied by Jesus in his Olivet Discourse; just not that everything in the discourse was fulfilled in AD 70.

Thank you for the correction. It doesn't completely answer my point, though. (Just wondering, are you a full preterist or just partial?)

I think we're getting too far from the OP now, and I claim partial blame. Apologies to Jon, the OP author.
The very existence of the book of Hebrews says to me that God still loved the Jews in AD 70. And, "So perhaps we should think of a date near or even during the war of A.D. 66-70)" (Hebrews in EBC, by Leon Morris, p. 8). The destruction of Jerusalem was in punishment, certainly, but also in love to draw the Jews to Himself. It may have been for their persecution, but at this point I think we are well away from the OP about Revelation, so I'm going to stop here.
And many thousands of Jews became believers.

Jesus Himself stated that he was addressing what would happen soon, and what was to come in the Future... How can ANY see the Second Coming as Ad 70, when there was NO resurrection of the saints alive/dead at that time?

 

[Covenanter]

Thanks. I know many here have studied not only the book but also the genre much more than I (I am only beginning to look at Revelation closely). I just keep running into the need to understand it as a literary genre and thought some here would be equipped to explain the reasoning.

Seven pages to date in search of a "literary genre." I think we've seen more heat than light.
I submit that if we have a problem understanding Scripture as Scripture, & instead seek to see a "genre" as key to understanding, then the understanding we come to is without a proper basis.

Yep! Apocalyptic literature uses symbols and imagery to convey truth. It is not meant to be obscure. The key is in the name Revelation. It's not meant to hide but to reveal. It is neither a history book, nor solely a book of prophecy. It has much to say to us that is helpful in understanding the present time.
https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/revelation-8-chapter-12-the-woman-the-dragon/

Good point, Martin. A careful study with attention to cross references in the OC & NC Scriptures will yield understanding, but caution in interpreting is advisable. I preached through Revelation from the late date, amil understanding in the 90s, but further study changed that understanding.

Amil is very helpful, in understanding the present time - as Christians down the ages have found as they see themselves in the comparable situations. However that approach fails to address the Revelation as specific prophecy.

 

[Yeshua1]

Seven pages to date in search of a "literary genre." I think we've seen more heat than light.
I submit that if we have a problem understanding Scripture as Scripture, & instead seek to see a "genre" as key to understanding, then the understanding we come to is without a proper basis.



Good point, Martin. A careful study with attention to cross references in the OC & NC Scriptures will yield understanding, but caution in interpreting is advisable. I preached through Revelation from the late date, amil understanding in the 90s, but further study changed that understanding.

Amil is very helpful, in understanding the present time - as Christians down the ages have found as they see themselves in the comparable situations. However that approach fails to address the Revelation as specific prophecy.

At least A Mil can be based upon scripture, but pretierism cannot be found in the scriptures, as it denies the essential truth of the future Second coming !

 

[Happy]

Reading several commentaries on Revelation, each point to the need to understand the book as written in apocalyptic form as a literary genre. Mounce points out that this is a type of literature that flourished from about 200 BC to 100 AD, and indicates that the book differs on a few points from apocalyptic literature. Still, going through the commentary it is often pointed out that this passage, or that passage, utilizes common aspects of the literary form to illustrate, symbolize, or highlight subjects either directly (cities, historical events) or abstractly (numerology).

My question is concerns the nature of interpretation when it comes to this type of material. On one hand, it seems that we are looking to the genre to interpret the message. And this makes sense to me. If apocalyptic, as a literary genre, was popular during the writing of Revelation then it seems to me that the original audience would have interpreted the message within the mode with which they were familiar.

But on the other hand, as a literary genre it is described as mimicking Old Testament prophesies and visions. If Revelation was written without consideration to genre, but as a direct prophesy (Revelation calls itself a prophesy in 1:3; 22:7; 10, 18, 19), then using apocalyptic as a literary genre to interpret the message may be misleading. It may be an instance of the “tail wagging the dog” as the genre being used to interpret Revelation may itself be aping the mode of the book.

My question is, in interpreting Revelation (and, I suppose, certain OT passages as well), how much should we rely on extra-biblical sources and forms?

Revelations written ~ in apocalyptic form as a literary genre? Not sure the intent of what that is supposed to mean.

I am not a fan of descriptions that leave the intent wavering to an individuals digression.

IMO when a reader of scripture can preface "their" understanding with such things as writing "style" or
flowery words such as "literal, not literal, figurative, etc. that the next thing they say IS their opinion of their minds understanding they are peddling as fact.

Scripture itself reveals very basic knowledge on the very basics of who, what, when, why and where.
Paramount basic is;
Faith IN God.
Trust IN God.
Gods Word is always Truth.
God Approved all Scripture with the Power of His own Spirit Breath.

"knowledge" is revealed for everyone.
"understanding" is revealed FOR the saved and born again, WHO seek.

Scripture fulfilled IS fulfilled, whether by God whose Word speaks it, and whose Power effects it, or by a man WHO believes, trusts and submits to it.

Only God gives one "His Understanding".

Human mindful "understanding", is carnal, and irrelevant in Spiritual matters.

Scripture; whether "called" pros, poetry, parable, proverb, prophecy, story, etc. It is all truth.

Revelations is exactly what the title of the book implies.

Rev.1
[1] The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Rev 1:1 tells you straight off, it's a revealing of what SHALL come to pass. Also WHO is entitled to the knowledge AND understanding. ie Servants of Jesus Christ.

IF that is you; then the process is to read, trust, study it. When you are faced with NOT understanding something, it is THEN, you ask God Himself for His "understanding".

Point being, IF you ARE a servant, and IF you ARE diligently reading and trusting; God IS faithful to give you when you seek Him and ASK.

Job.28

1. [12] But where shall wisdom be found? and where is the place of understanding?

Matt.7

1. [7] Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
2. [8] For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
   
   Luke.24
   1. [45] Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
   
   Matt.16
   1. [17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
   
   

 

[JonC]

Revelations written ~ in apocalyptic form as a literary genre? Not sure the intent of what that is supposed to mean.

I am not a fan of descriptions that leave the intent wavering to an individuals digression.

IMO when a reader of scripture can preface "their" understanding with such things as writing "style" or
flowery words such as "literal, not literal, figurative, etc. that the next thing they say IS their opinion of their minds understanding they are peddling as fact.

Scripture itself reveals very basic knowledge on the very basics of who, what, when, why and where.
Paramount basic is;
Faith IN God.
Trust IN God.
Gods Word is always Truth.
God Approved all Scripture with the Power of His own Spirit Breath.

"knowledge" is revealed for everyone.
"understanding" is revealed FOR the saved and born again, WHO seek.

Scripture fulfilled IS fulfilled, whether by God whose Word speaks it, and whose Power effects it, or by a man WHO believes, trusts and submits to it.

Only God gives one "His Understanding".

Human mindful "understanding", is carnal, and irrelevant in Spiritual matters.

Scripture; whether "called" pros, poetry, parable, proverb, prophecy, story, etc. It is all truth.

Revelations is exactly what the title of the book implies.

Rev.1
[1] The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Rev 1:1 tells you straight off, it's a revealing of what SHALL come to pass. Also WHO is entitled to the knowledge AND understanding. ie Servants of Jesus Christ.

IF that is you; then the process is to read, trust, study it. When you are faced with NOT understanding something, it is THEN, you ask God Himself for His "understanding".

Point being, IF you ARE a servant, and IF you ARE diligently reading and trusting; God IS faithful to give you when you seek Him and ASK.

Job.28

1. [12] But where shall wisdom be found? and where is the place of understanding?

Matt.7

1. [7] Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
2. [8] For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
   
   Luke.24
   1. [45] Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
   
   Matt.16
   1. [17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

The apokalupsis of Jesus Christ has been interpreted differently. My question was about "apokalupsis" as a literary form.

For example, if I speak of a "psalm" of David then I am speaking of not only what is contained in the Psalm but the form itself. Is it important to understand the repetitiveness in Hebrew poetry or is the information conveyed intended to stand alone? If the former, then the second phrase is a reiteration of the first (in Ps. 22, "forsake" equates to "deliverance"). If the latter, the phrases ate not so tightly connected (in Ps 22 the subject may be "forsaken" and also undelivered).

It has been emphasized elsewhere that to understand the apokalupsis of Christ one must understand apokalupsis as a literary form. That was what I was asking about.

 

[TCassidy]

They worship in ignorance the true God, but still blind to jesus as Messiah, but Islam worships false god altogether!

The "true Godhead" does not include Jesus as Son of God? Do you deny the Deity of Christ?

 

[Happy]

The apokalupsis of Jesus Christ has been interpreted differently. My question was about "apokalupsis" as a literary form.

For example, if I speak of a "psalm" of David then I am speaking of not only what is contained in the Psalm but the form itself. Is it important to understand the repetitiveness in Hebrew poetry or is the information conveyed intended to stand alone? If the former, then the second phrase is a reiteration of the first (in Ps. 22, "forsake" equates to "deliverance"). If the latter, the phrases ate not so tightly connected (in Ps 22 the subject may be "forsaken" and also undelivered).

It has been emphasized elsewhere that to understand the apokalupsis of Christ one must understand apokalupsis as a literary form. That was what I was asking about.

Why? My point being; ALL Scripture is true, regardless of what genre it is revealed.

The context is important, and the understanding is paramount.

Pss.22
[1] My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

This ^ is a question. Why is one questioning God not responding on "their" time frame? God assists and reveals when it is best for the one asking. (Trust God) This verse is not about a man being "forsaken" (as God has left him), but rather the question of a man expressing impatience.

Read Pss 22 1-21 poor me, God you have not acted quickly enough.

Read Pss 22:22 [22] I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.

See the context? Give me Oh God, where are you Oh God......answer me Oh God.....and THEN....
I will openly declare you Oh God.

Where is the faith to openly declare God to begin with?

Pss 22: [25] My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation:

Humm, Why "shall be"? Why not "has been"?

"Is it important to understand the repetitiveness in Hebrew poetry or is the information conveyed intended to stand alone? "

That it is Hebrew language, important to me? No
That it is Poetry, important to me? No.
That information be considered within context, important to me? Yes.

I have fulfilled scriptures in submitting unto the Lord.
He is faithful and shall NEVER leave me. Period.
I don't challenge His time-frame. I Trust Him.
He does not "speak" to me in Hebrew, English, Poetry, etc. so those things mean nothing to me.
We communicate and fellowship His Spirit to my spirit and visa versa, thus what philosophers like to direct attention to, is of no consideration to me.

Trust what you read or be influenced by what others philosophize that you should consider what they think.

 

[Jope]

The Jews today believe the same way, they reject one third of the Godhead, God the Son.

That's not the same God.

The entire dispensational early church were against a main tenet of Marcionism, viz. the belief that the OT God was a different God than the God of the New Testament as revealed in Christ.

"And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works" - Justin Martyr, First Apology, Ch. XXXVI

"Marcion of Pontus...advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself. But [Marcion's doctrine is that] Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judaea ..., was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judaea, abolishing the prophets and the law, and all the works of that God" - Iranaeus, Against Heresies, Book I, Chap. XXVII.​

Therefore, if you are claiming that the Jews worship a different God today, you are, historically, outside of dispensational theology and also outside of orthodoxy.

In the Old Testament, Jabez, a Gentile who had not known of the Israelitish religion, prayed to God and God heard him and gave him his desire. This proves that God is Jabez's God and Israel's God too, that is to say, the same God. In Romans 10:12, 19-21, Paul is saying that God is doing the opposite now between the Jews and the Gentiles.

NET
12For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, who richly blesses all who call on him.
...
19But again I ask, didn’t Israel understand? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous by those who are not a nation; with a senseless nation I will provoke you to anger.” 20And Isaiah is even bold enough to say, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I became well known to those who did not ask for me.” 21But about Israel he says, “All day long I held out my hands to this disobedient and stubborn people!”​

Romans 11:11 says that Israel has only stumbled and has not fallen. They still worship the same God we do, but their zeal of God is not according to knowledge (Rom. 10:1-2). The Jews, as Jabez in the OT, can receive good gifts from God and thus have him as their Father while not being saved.

 

[TCassidy]

Therefore, if you are claiming that the Jews worship a different God today, you are, historically, outside of dispensational theology and also outside of orthodoxy.

So, you are claiming the Jews worship Jesus, as God the Son? I am afraid you are sadly confused.

Secondly, as I am not a dispensationalist I am not overly concerned that my biblical views of the Identity of the Godhead, are, as you falsely claim, outside of dispensational theology.

And, unlike you, who seems unaware that God the Son is the Second Person of the Triune Godhead, my position is the orthodox one.

As you said in an earlier posting, "Read some theology."

Better yet, read some Bible. What did Paul say their worship was lacking? (Romans 10:10) "Confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus." Confess that Jesus is the Messiah, the 2nd Person of the Triune Godhead, which, up until now, most Jews were denying.

 

[TCassidy]

They still worship the same God we do,

Speak for yourself. I do not deny the Deity of Christ.

 

[Jope]

So, you are claiming the Jews worship Jesus, as God the Son? I am afraid you are sadly confused.

That's funny. Those who use straw man fallacies are, according to common sense and logic and coherence, confused.

 

[TCassidy]

That's funny. Those who use straw man fallacies are, according to common sense and logic and coherence, confused.

Can't see the Truth, can you. LOL!

 

[Jope]

Secondly, as I am not a dispensationalist I am not overly concerned that my biblical views of the Identity of the Godhead, are, as you falsely claim, outside of dispensational theology.

Did you know that even enemies of dispensational theology (like Whitby) have admitted that the entire early church believed that anyone who was not a dispensationalist was a heretic?

 

[Jope]

Can't answer the question, can you. LOL!

Read my post instead of making straw man fallacies and you will have your answer. No jokes your answer is right in there.

 

[TCassidy]

Did you know that even enemies of dispensational theology (like Whitby) have admitted that the entire early church believed that anyone who was not a dispensationalist was a heretic?

Wrong again. You continue to confuse dispensationalism with Premilllennialism. Different things.

Here is a hint: Not all Premillennialists are dispensationalists.