Posted on 05/29/2014 3:27:32 PM PDT by dartuser
I don't see any spiritualization, whatsoever. In fact, he seems to agree with me, that "beating plowshares into swords" might take some time to fulfill; to the dismay of those who expect instant gratification.
>>>"nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."<<<
>>>If this passage in Isaiah has been fulfilled ... then how would you characterize World War II?<<<
I recently posted a thread on the subject. It is rather involved, so I will not repost here. I would appreciate your analysis. This is the thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3162459/posts
>>>I will never understand your propensity to deny historical reality so that you can maintain an aberrant theological position.<<<
You reading comprehension skills appear weak. You have my sympathy. You might want to try the method I use to improve my comprehension. If I am having trouble understanding a passage, or a forum post, I read it out loud to incorporate another "sense" (hearing.) If that doesn't help, I ask my wife. LOL!
Philip
Thanks! I’d rather call myself a literalist, but that would just get things started again. We will all get the “straight scoop” soon enough.
Thanks,
(I think you must have meant Matt. 24 not Matt. 14)
Six thousand years of human history is coming to a head in our times. What happened in 70 AD was but precursory, which means most of what Christ said in Matt. 24 was directed to US.>>>>>>
Right, but we can see that some of it was for those times, the destruction of the temple for instance.
He departed from the Mount of Olives right? If He comes the same way ... how is it a stretch to believe He will return to the Mount of Olives?
In fact, one of the most significant passages in the OT depicting this coming is in Zechariah 14 ... in which it specifically says He will return to the Mount of Olives.
After His return ... vs 9 And the Lord will be king over all the earth; in that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one.
Do you believe the Lord is king over all the earth today? Is He the only one worshipped? Is His name the only God who is named on the face of the earth?
If you are honest Philip, you must answer 'no' ... and I think you would answer that way. He is not the only one ... there are many false religions, false gods, false teachers today ...
I look forward to the time when He alone will be King over the earth (yes, the earth) ...
Then you and I will agree on everything ... ok, maybe you will still have a different philosophy of the best chess openings for white.
The differences outweight the similarities. And if this is the first resurrection, and it happened in 70 AD, then there were no believers left on the earth after 70 AD. Where did all the believers after 70 AD come from? Where is the record of thousands of believers disappearing off the face of the earth in 70 AD? Who was left to preach the gospel to the world?
Doesn't add up exegetically ... or historically.
I’m just speculating, but if you follow that line of thinking, you come against established doctrine quickly.
“You have been making those claims, over and over again; but I tend to believe that if you had proof, you would show it, over and over again. “
I’ve already posted the proof, it’s in the verses that you can read as well as anyone else. Revelation clearly describes two events, as well as other verses. How can you explain those away by pointing to a verse that isn’t as specific? It’s impossible, all you can do is try to intentionally misread verses to cast doubt on others.
“I am simply saying that I believe you are misinterpreting the scriptures; and I have been saying that all along.”
How is it possible that saying there are two resurrections, when the Bible describes the two resurrections, names them the first and second resurrection, and gives us details as to who will be part of each, be a misinterpretation? Your only argument for that is to point to less specific verses while ignoring the more specific ones.
“Jesus being the greatest prophet, like the prophets before him, simply looked beyond 70 AD to the end time. He used the prophetic projection used by the inspired prophets. AD 70 was but the precursory “near” fulfillment.”
I agree, 70 AD was clearly just a shadow or type of the tribulation. Since trying to force it to fit the tribulation of the Bible leaves so many prophecies unfulfilled, it could not have been the actual “great” tribulation.
“The exegesis of Isaiah 2:4 is rather involved, so I have posted a new thread with my interpretation for all to see.”
Seems to me that your entire premise rests on the idea that Christ can’t complete His promised mission in a timely manner because... Satan? Yet, Christ can defeat Satan with a single word, so we know that can’t be correct.
“We don’t know that. We only know certain individuals in the generation of Paul were to be resurrected.”
Yes, we do know that. You don’t want to admit it, but it’s right there in the Bible. The dead and living in Christ are all raised at the first resurrection, so that doesn’t leave any others. Unless you want to propose some half-dead, half-living category of zombie Christians, you are out of luck on this point, as far as Scripture is concerned.
“Your assumption that it will occur in the future is simply that: an assumption.”
It’s the only reasonable assumption, as we can still see living Christians around us (or dig up dead ones, if you want to prove it further).
“How about these?”
Yes, there are a few instances translated differently, but they are a tiny minority, out of those hundreds of verses translated as “these”.
“I examined about half of the 441 verses where I found that Hebrew word, and not once did it mean “all,” or “everyone,” or “complete,” or anything that would imply what you claim.”
I’m not claiming it means that. I’m claiming it means these, or those. It is a word specifying a group more than denoting the quantity of that group.
“Perhaps you could show us the passages you are referring to.”
I posted you the link, they are all listed there.
“I think I understand what happened. I believe you accidentally picked the wrong Hebrew word, saw what you perceived was an error on my part, and ran with it. No problem.”
It’s not the wrong word. Check it yourself in the interlinear text, the word translated as “some” or “many” is el-leh:
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/daniel/12-2.htm
You can find more on the word’s meaning here:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/428.htm
Where you will learn that, in the NASB at least, it is translated as “these” 627 out of 736 instances, while it is only translates as “some” in 4 out of 736 instances.
“Where does it say that?”
It’s the obvious interpretation, if you are not trying to make the different verses describing the same events contradict each other.
“As is your “rapture of the church” notion.”
How is that my notion? I believe in Christ’s second coming, and the resurrection of the saints, as described in the Bible.
“I do not discard verses because I don’t happen to like them.”
Yeah, sure you don’t.
“If there is a pattern here, then it might be that the second resurrection is not necessary or possible until after the second death which isn’t until the end of Revelation 20.”
There’s no resurrection possible after the second death. The second death is the lake of fire, and it is permanent. All those who are part of the second resurrection are at risk of the second death, as the second death comes at the end of the day of judgement. Those who are part of the first resurrection, Christians, are spared the judgement and the second death.
Read it again. Not once do they (the men in white) say he returns to earth. As explained previously, Acts 1:9-11 matches Paul's understanding of the first resurrection in 1 Thess 4:16-17; and in neither case does the Lord return "to earth;" rather he returns "from heaven." Big difference! Paul wrote that they rise up to meet him. You do believe that, don't you?
>>>In fact, one of the most significant passages in the OT depicting this coming is in Zechariah 14 ... in which it specifically says He will return to the Mount of Olives. After His return ... vs 9 And the Lord will be king over all the earth; in that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one.<<<
It does not say he "RETURNS" to mount Olives. In fact, in the next verse it says he returns with his saints. I recommend you refrain from adding words to the scriptures.
>>>After His return ... vs 9 "And the Lord will be king over all the earth; in that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one."<<<
>>> Do you believe the Lord is king over all the earth today? Is He the only one worshipped? Is His name the only God who is named on the face of the earth?<<<
Your statement and questions contain spiritualized scriptures. First, it does not say he reigns after he returns. Zech 14 is referring to the "day of the Lord," which covers many years (about 40 in my estimation.) They are not necessarily chronological.
For example, verse 3 chronologically follows verse 2 because of the use of the word "Then" in verse 3. But most of the others are connected with the word "And", which means they could occur in any order.
You interpreted the first question right: yes, the Lord is, and has been, king over all the earth since the first century; but you spiritualized the 2nd and 3rd questions to fit a preconceived futurist doctrine. This is how those clauses actually read:
"…in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one."
Any why is that important to know? Because the Jews were into idolatry, mentioned in the previous chapter:
"And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land." (Zec 13:2 KJV)
To accomplish that, the Lord first sent the Holy Sprit to the earth (after he ascended to the father.) That prophecy to send the holy spirit is found in the verse after the one you posted. But they are connected with the word "And." Therefore, we do not know exactly when the Lord established his kingdom, except that it happened during "the day of the Lord" in the mid-first century.
This is the context of your verse, showing the day of Pentecost, immediately followed by the declaration that the Lord is king over all the earth:
"And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one." (Zec 14:8-9 KJV)
In that "day:" the day of the Lord, which lasted about forty years, the idolatry of the Jews was destroyed (Zech 13:2,) the prophecy was sealed (Daniel 9:24,) and there was no turning back. Within that "forty" year span, called "the day of the Lord" (many places,) and "the great and dreadful day of the Lord (Mal 4:5,) the Lord became king over all the earth; and nothing could stop Him from placing all his enemies under his feet. But that takes time:
"For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." (1Cor 15:25-26 KJV)
That will be fulfilled, that is, death will be destroyed, at the final judgement in Revelation 20:14.
The notions that his enemies are instantly destroyed, or that the nations immediately beat their swords into plowshares, as soon as he sits down in his throne, are serious theological errors, and lead to many other errors.
>>>If you are honest Philip, you must answer 'no'<<<
You are not claiming I have been dishonest, are you? Borrowing the words of Justin Martyr to Trypho the Jew"
“I am not so miserable a fellow,[Dartuser], as to say one thing and think another." ["Dialogue with Trypho", Chapter LXXX]
LOL!
>>> ... and I think you would answer that way. <<<
I personally think I should continuing avoiding all questionable doctrines. Rather I should continue relying on the plain words of the scriptures, when available; and approach with caution those scriptures that are clearly allegorical, such as Zech 14:4-5, and almost the entire 19th chapter of the Revelation.
>>>He is not the only one ... there are many false religions, false gods, false teachers today<<<
He is the only Lord. As you said, the others are false. However, the context of that statement you are misinterpreting was referring to the idolatry of the Jews under the old covenant, as aforementioned, in Zechariah 13:2. The old covenant was fulfilled by Christ, Galatians 3:16; and idolatry amongst God's people was destroyed in AD 70 when God divorced the sinful Jews and destroyed them, along with their organization and instruments of idolatrous worship within Jerusalem.
A quick note: in the old testament, when the Lord used the words, "the land," he always identified "the land;" except maybe in some cases relating to Israel or the promised land. For example he would use modifiers, such as "the land of Assyria," or "the land of Egypt;" or identify the land in other ways.
But in Zech 13:2, he only uses the words, "the land." But we know that was a reference to the land of Israel, or, in this case, Judaea, because he begins the chapter in the previous verse with a reference to Jerusalem.
>>>I look forward to the time when He alone will be King over the earth (yes, the earth)<<<
Then you should be very happy, because he alone is King over the earth, and has been since the first century.
>>>Then you and I will agree on everything ... ok, maybe you will still have a different philosophy of the best chess openings for white.<<<
I seriously doubt I will ever agree with dispensationalism/futurism, or, generally speaking, futurists. I refrain from using the adverb "never," because all things are possible; but agreeing with futurists is impossible for me unless the Lord himself tells me otherwise.
Philip
All I see two are distinct resurrections in the Revelation separated by a "thousand years." The only way they can fit the futurist agenda of a future "rapture of only Christians" is by spiritualizing the scripture.
>>>How is it possible that saying there are two resurrections, when the Bible describes the two resurrections, names them the first and second resurrection, and gives us details as to who will be part of each, be a misinterpretation? Your only argument for that is to point to less specific verses while ignoring the more specific ones.<<<
There are many verses that contradict your interpretation. Even the ones that you claim justify your interpretation are unspecific.
For example, the fact that Paul doesn't refer to the resurrection of the unjust, as well as the just, in 1st Thessalonians 4 does not mean they were not resurrected at that time. And when John mentions a "second death" in Revelation 20, he could have been implying there is also a "first death." After all, the "first resurrection" implied there was a "second resurrection," and there was, in the same chapter.
However Jesus and Daniel were very specific. Jesus explained that both the good and the evil would be resurrected in "the same hour" (John 5:28-29;) and Daniel, in chapter 12, prophesied that "at that time . . . many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake," both the good and the evil. Both indicate that the good and the evil are resurrected at the same time, or within a very short time of each other. The resurrections in the Revelation are a very long time apart: e.g., a "thousand years."
Why should I believe your interpretation? If you show me clear proof of your interpretation, one that explains why Daniel and Jesus did not say what they clearly said, then I will believe you. Merely restating that you have already shown me the proof is not proof. Post scriptural proof, if you have it.
Philip
Is this your idea of the kingdom?
I have to say ... if you think THIS is the kingdom ... your idea of the kingdom sucks.
>>>Seems to me that your entire premise rests on the idea that Christ can’t complete His promised mission in a timely manner because... Satan? Yet, Christ can defeat Satan with a single word, so we know that can’t be correct.<<<
I have no clue what you are talking about. Would you mind posting those portions you disagree with, and explain why you disagree with them?
Thank,
Philip
>>>I have to say ... if you think THIS is the kingdom ... your idea of the kingdom sucks.<<<
Maybe you prefer a dictator.
Philip
Where does it say all believers are resurrected in the first resurrection? This is the first resurrection:
"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." (Rev 20:4-6 KJV)
Moses and Peter wrote that the priestly nation was Israel:
"For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth." (Deu 14:2 KJV)
"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;" (1Pet 2:9 KJV)
I seriously doubt both Peter and Moses were referring to different nations when they used the descriptor, a peculiar people. Note Peter's use of the words "chosen generation."
Daniel indicated the first resurrection was for only his people, which would be Israel:
"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan 12:1-2 KJV)
Philip
“All I see two are distinct resurrections in the Revelation separated by a “thousand years.”
Well, there you go, two distinct resurrections in Revelation that even you can’t explain away.
“The only way they can fit the futurist agenda of a future “rapture of only Christians” is by spiritualizing the scripture.”
You keep talking about this rapture to me and I’m not sure why. I believe in the resurrection of all Christians at Christ’s second coming, just as the Bible teaches.
“For example, the fact that Paul doesn’t refer to the resurrection of the unjust, as well as the just, in 1st Thessalonians 4 does not mean they were not resurrected at that time.”
It sure does when all of the signs mentioned in that verse only match with the description of the first resurrection in Revelation, and Revelation is also clear that only the righteous are resurrected at that time. This leaves no room for your interpretation.
“And when John mentions a “second death” in Revelation 20, he could have been implying there is also a “first death.”
Of course there is a first death, the physical death we all experience (save perhaps a lucky few translated directly to heaven).
“However Jesus and Daniel were very specific. Jesus explained that both the good and the evil would be resurrected in “the same hour” (John 5:28-29;)”
No he didn’t. He said “the hour is coming”, a figure of speech meaning that the time is coming when some prophetic events will unfold. It doesn’t mean they all happen in one hour.
“and Daniel, in chapter 12, prophesied that “at that time . . . many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,” both the good and the evil.”
Which is correct, at that time, the end times, both resurrections happen. This can’t mean they both happen simultaneously, or that would make Revelation untrue, and it would make God a liar. I, for one, prefer the interpretation that does not create contradictions.
“Why should I believe your interpretation?”
Because it doesn’t make God out to be a liar, maybe? Or you can go on believing your interpretation, in which God contradicts himself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.