Spiritual Interpretation....pt3

[Iconoclast]

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

What you post here supports the idea that this warning was for first century Jews who were to flee the NT period of persecution that was coming upon them between66-70 ad.

Not you bring out 1 cor10:32 as if this is a major text.....but it is not.
It speaks of......unsaved jews,....unsaved gentiles........and then the church of God...Jew and gentile,as one new man In Christ. Nothing to see here.

[Personal attack edited] It does not matter if they read a few prophecy books or not.maybe a study of the book of James is in order before your calendar gets adjusted.

 

[Jope]

What you post here supports the idea that this warning was for first century Jews who were to flee the NT period of persecution that was coming upon them between66-70 ad.

Wrong again. Dispensationalism teaches that the Olivet discourse is fulfilled in Daniels future 70th week. Look up the straw man fallacy.

Not you bring out 1 cor10:32 as if this is a major text.....but it is not.
It speaks of......unsaved jews,....unsaved gentiles........and then the church of God...Jew and gentile,as one new man In Christ. Nothing to see here.

I see that you have a [edited] method of skirting things and ignoring them when they don't fit your bias. I asked why Paul distinguishes between Jew, gentile and the church if they are the same entities? Why can't you answer this? Is it because you are wrong and Jews, gentiles and the church are separate entities?

You make a really bad case for your view if you have to constantly skirt rebuttals to it.

[Personal attack edited] It does not matter if they read a few prophecy books or not.maybe a study of the book of James is in order before your calendar gets adjusted.

[Edited]

And most or all of your allegations are completely false accusations and propaganda.[Edited]

Now let's cut the ad hominems and get back to the discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

Amen. One can understand the letter of the New Testament, but it is useless without the spirit of it.

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

[Edited]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I replied to Mt. 24.20 and Deu. 30.3. Perhaps you should reread my posts as well as Mt. 5.22.

 

[Yeshua1]

[PrmtvBptst1832,


The bible speaks of many comings....not everyone is the second coming. Sometimes in scripture God is said to come in the clouds...it speaks of judgment, not the second coming.

.
This is not a surprise...why is this news?



All views do the same thing.

There is ONLY though a single Second Coming event though, and the dead in Christ shall be physically raised, and we alive glorified to be with Jesus, and that has not happened yet, for that is the Blessed Hope!

 

[Yeshua1]

I replied to Mt. 24.20 and Deu. 30.3. Perhaps you should reread my posts as well as Mt. 5.22.

Think that Amils and Pre Mils should close ranks in order to heed over preterist type theology creep into our churches!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

The book of revelation describes things happening in the end that involve whole Earth, as God wrath judges world systems and sinners, and that was Not AD 70!

 

[Jope]

I replied to Mt. 24.20 and Deu. 30.3. Perhaps you should reread my posts as well as Mt. 5.22.

Oh sorry I can't read them because I've edited them for being loaded full of logical fallacies like red herrings and straw men to name a few. Darn editing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

I see that you girls can't take the slightest criticism whatsoever because it tarnishes your vanity. It's way too difficult to discuss anything on this board.

I get edited because I call people childish, yet paul claims that the Corinthians and Ephesians are childish.

Let me know when you're ready to be men and set your highly touchy egos aside. Till then, I guess I'll claim that I won't post anything on this board while still posting things. Cudos


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rememebr that we all see thru the glass dimly my brother!

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

I do not cite this to bolster my own opinion because even though Justin Martyr, as well as many others, were clearly Premillennialists, he mentioned others in his day whom he esteemed to "belong to the pure and pious faith and are true Christians" who differed to some extent. Whether those he mentioned were Premillennialists who only differed on certain particulars or if they advocated something similar to Amillennialism, no one knows. What we do know, at least from this dialogue, is that he did not call those who were not persuaded of what he believed as "clowns," "complete fools," etc. "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity."

Trypho: I remarked to you, sir, that you are very anxious to be safe in all respects since you cling to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together and made joyful with Christ, and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? Or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?

Justin: I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise...But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.

(Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 80)

 

[Yeshua1]

I do not cite this to bolster my own opinion because even though Justin Martyr, as well as many others, were clearly Premillennialists, he mentioned others in his day whom he esteemed to "belong to the pure and pious faith and are true Christians" who differed to some extent. Whether those he mentioned were Premillennialists who only differed on certain particulars or if they advocated something similar to Amillennialism, no one knows. What we do know, at least from this dialogue, is that he did not call those who were not persuaded of what he believed as "clowns," "complete fools," etc. "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity."

Trypho: I remarked to you, sir, that you are very anxious to be safe in all respects since you cling to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together and made joyful with Christ, and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? Or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?

Justin: I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise...But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.

(Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 80)

Those who hold to the Second Coming having been done AD 70 are foolish...

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

Those who hold to the Second Coming having been done AD 70 are foolish...

One who believes that is not a Christian. Period. In my humble opinion, Preterism is dangerous in that, if followed consistently, it logically leads one to deny the (future) coming of the Lord and resurrection of the dead. However, not all Preterists affirm that. As for their inconsistency and illogic, they must sort that out for themselves.

 

[Yeshua1]

One who believes that is not a Christian. Period. In my humble opinion, Preterism is dangerous in that, if followed consistently, it logically leads one to deny the (future) coming of the Lord and resurrection of the dead. However, not all Preterists affirm that. As for their inconsistency and illogic, they must sort that out for themselves.

They would hold tojsut a spiritual resurrection, but how is it possible for that to be, since we will be as He now is, and He was raised back to life in same Body that he died in?

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

They would hold tojsut a spiritual resurrection, but how is it possible for that to be, since we will be as He now is, and He was raised back to life in same Body that he died in?

Most Preterists do not deny the resurrection of the dead. Those who do, redefine it to be wholly spiritual in nature and not having any reference to our bodies. We know that is obviously contrary to the scriptures and what the church has always affirmed. In the resurrection, the natural body is raised spiritual (1 Co. 15.43) as to quality, but not substance. Note the comparison Paul makes between "natural" and "spiritual" in 1 Co. 2. Our Lord had flesh and bones, and a spirit has neither (Lk. 24.39).

 

[Covenanter]

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.

I think it high likely that Jewish Christians living in Jerusalem in the first century before AD 70 would have observed the Sabbath. May thousands of Jews became Christians as recorded in Acts.

What you post here supports the idea that this warning was for first century Jews who were to flee the NT period of persecution that was coming upon them between66-70 ad.

Agreed.

Wrong again. Dispensationalism teaches that the Olivet discourse is fulfilled in Daniels future 70th week. Look up the straw man fallacy.

Dispensationalism may teach that, but the Holy Bible doesn't.

Gabriel prophesies the saving work of Christ will be finished in the appointed 70 weeks - most agree that that means 490 years, as the 70 years has been referenced by Daniel. Depending on our understanding of v. 25, the 69th week takes us to Jesus baptism or possible his entry to Jerusalem. I understand the 69th week to begin at the start of his ministry. The 70 week will then cover the 3 1/2 years of ministry & the 3 1/2 years from Pentecost, ending with the Jewish leaders being denounced as "uncircumcised" (Acts 7:51) & the conversion of Cornelius & other uncircumcised gentiles.

Jesus was confirming the covenant for the "week" of his ministry together with the Apostolic preaching. He was cut off in the middle of that 70th week. All that remained, after the 69th week, after the 70th week during which the covenant was confirmed, was the destruction. Jesus alludes to Daniel's prophecy to warn about the destruction.

For dispensationalism to separate week 70 from week 69 & insert 300 weeks is a total violation of the prophecy.

Gabriel did NOT say, "hundreds of weeks, unspecified....." He said:

“Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.
​

Or did Jesus fail in any aspect of the prophesied saving ministry?

 

[Yeshua1]

I think it high likely that Jewish Christians living in Jerusalem in the first century before AD 70 would have observed the Sabbath. May thousands of Jews became Christians as recorded in Acts.



Agreed.


Dispensationalism may teach that, but the Holy Bible doesn't.

Gabriel prophesies the saving work of Christ will be finished in the appointed 70 weeks - most agree that that means 490 years, as the 70 years has been referenced by Daniel. Depending on our understanding of v. 25, the 69th week takes us to Jesus baptism or possible his entry to Jerusalem. I understand the 69th week to begin at the start of his ministry. The 70 week will then cover the 3 1/2 years of ministry & the 3 1/2 years from Pentecost, ending with the Jewish leaders being denounced as "uncircumcised" (Acts 7:51) & the conversion of Cornelius & other uncircumcised gentiles.

Jesus was confirming the covenant for the "week" of his ministry together with the Apostolic preaching. He was cut off in the middle of that 70th week. All that remained, after the 69th week, after the 70th week during which the covenant was confirmed, was the destruction. Jesus alludes to Daniel's prophecy to warn about the destruction.

For dispensationalism to separate week 70 from week 69 & insert 300 weeks is a total violation of the prophecy.

Gabriel did NOT say, "hundreds of weeks, unspecified....." He said:

“Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.​

Or did Jesus fail in any aspect of the prophesied saving ministry?

Jesus Himself stated that some of his answers were to be fulfilled now, and in the future, as at His second coming event, correct? So its ad 70 AND second coming, not AD 70 was it!

 

[Iconoclast]

"Jope,

Wrong again. Dispensationalism teaches that the Olivet discourse is fulfilled in Daniels future 70th week. Look up the straw man fallacy.

I have forgotten more about dispensationalism than you know.I know all about the false teaching offered on Daniels 70th week.
Philip Mauro answered that back in 1920 and you have not seen it evidently.

I see that you have a [edited] method of skirting things and ignoring them when they don't fit your bias. I asked why Paul distinguishes between Jew, gentile and the church if they are the same entities? Why can't you answer this? Is it because you are wrong and Jews, gentiles and the church are separate entities?

You make a really bad case for your view if you have to constantly skirt rebuttals to it.

I answered your big 1 cor 10:32 already...you quoted it...so you read it...I cannot help if you lack ready comprehension

[Edited]

And most or all of your allegations are completely false accusations and propaganda.[Edited]

Now let's cut the ad hominems and get back to the discussion.

The moderator keeps editing your posts, because of rule violations. Get ahold of yourself before trying to post.If you continue to post like a jerk, I have no need to interact with you.

 

[Iconoclast]

Jesus Himself stated that some of his answers were to be fulfilled now, and in the future, as at His second coming event, correct? So its ad 70 AND second coming, not AD 70 was it!

Where?

 

[Covenanter]

Wrong again. Dispensationalism teaches that the Olivet discourse is fulfilled in Daniels future 70th week. Look up the straw man fallacy.

@John of Japan - do you agree with Jope? Surely a literal 70 sevens should end after 490 years - in the 30s.

Was Gabriel mistaken? Or was Jesus? Or Peter?

Acts 3:24 Y.es, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those who follow, as many as have spoken, have also foretold these days. 25 You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26 To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.”
​

Many thousands, including a great many of the priests believed in those first Gospel years. Why should week 70 be yet future?

Acts 6:7 Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.​

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

The book of revelation describes things happening in the end that involve whole Earth, as God wrath judges world systems and sinners, and that was Not AD 70!

Where does it say this?