Posted on 10/26/2007 9:00:59 PM PDT by topcat54
***Any one who did not get saved before the Rapture is complete, will not be a part of the Bride of Christ...***
Thank you. I am now well aware that the Dispensational view is that ALL the prophets before the coming of the Lord will never have their Messiah as bridegroom.
The funny thing here is that for all the racial nonsense about how special the Jews are, this view makes the OT saints little more than God’s little prostitute. And, to be honest, I find it particularly sad that anyone would call themself a Christian and friend of the Hebrews and believe such things. Talk about Replacementarianism and arrogance.
Abraham, David, et. all.: What do you mean we can’t be be part of Messiah’s bride?
God: Well, I’ll still visit every once in a while. [wink, wink] And, don’t forget the dirt.
Personally, I don’t think myself worthy to even be in the company of many of these people, much less the one who gets to be the bride while they get to be the other woman.
You don't know if I believe that or not...And why??? Because I never made such a statement...
Incidentally, I hope you didn’t take any of my posts as a personal insult because they weren’t meant to be.
Thank you for your thoughtful, studied, and carefully documented analysis.
Yes, I learned the cut-off is John the Baptist. And you are right that there is a "replacement" theeology, but it doesn't come from us. We have a continuation theology confirmed in the OT and the NT, one olive tree, two branches.
xzins had the original post thanks
Their house was left to them desolate, looks like something did it.
***Yes, I learned the cut-off is John the Baptist. And you are right that there is a “replacement” theeology, but it doesn’t come from us. We have a continuation theology confirmed in the OT and the NT, one olive tree, two branches.***
That is because we don’t carve up history into 7 dispensations. The sacramental tokens of grace began IN Eden. The age of grace began IN Eden. The covenant of grace (between the Father and the Son), instituted BEFORE time began, began to manifest itself IN Eden. The prophecy of redemption in grace for all mankind was first spoken to man IN Eden. The church began IN Eden.
I don’t know about Spurgeon, too verbose for me, and Luther I have never quoted, I don’t think, but Strong’s is a dictionary. I guess there are no dispensationalist dictionarys. That’s good, but I didn’t get the gift of the actual translation of Greek and Hebrew from the HS, but perhaps Dispos do and that’s a good thing
Well I don't see why not? We should and like Hal Lindsey when looking for the bogey man puzzle over the EU and Russia, completely ignoring Grand old Britain on whom the sun never set, and the US, because after all, they're us
I’ve often wondered why the prophetic fever didn’t ratchet up a few hundred notches with predictions that the anti-Christ was Bill Clinton (or, perhaps, Hillary). After all, your typical fundie dispy loved to tell everyone how the world was going to hell in a handbasket during his administration.
Maybe we should tell them to read Josephus (it’s not a dictionary) and see what a real anti-Christ looks like and he even built a temple!
Such silly statements do not help with your argument against the obvious parallel between Matt 24:15 and Luke 21:20. It only proves the fundamental irrationality of the entire dispensational system.
Using your rationale here, the "abomination of desolation" is "armies surrounding Jerusalem". Is that what the abomination of desolation means to you?
Just because something is parallel doesn't mean that it is identical or coincidental as these two passages prove. They may be similar but not the same.
Who profaned the altar? Who brought the curse upon them that they became desolate? What did they do, these ones who profaned the altar and brought the curse and yes it’s past tense
Jesus said it. Luke interpreted it. Take it up with them.
Just because something is parallel doesn't mean that it is identical or coincidental as these two passages prove. They may be similar but not the same.
Come on, Chipper, in order to discount the obvious parallelism and intent of Luke to be interpreting Jesus’ words for first century gentile readers, you need to have a better argument that "nu-uh".
You seem to have a very wooden understanding of the phrase "abomination of desolation" as used by Jesus. Jesus was using the phrase in much the same way was we would use a phrase like "Potemkin village". It conjures up a concept in the mind of the hearers based on historical facts. It can be applied to a modern situation for effect. E.g., "The CFO of the bank constructed a Potemkin village in order to hide his embezzlement." No one would read that sentence and think the CFO had anything to do with Catherine the Great.
So Jesus uses the phrase "abomination of desolation" (which comes from Daniel) to give His hearers a sense of the sort of destruction that was about to fall upon Jerusalem and the temple. Remember, He wants to impress the Jewish Christians that they need to flee at the first sign of the "abomination of desolation". If they waited until ensigns were actually set up in the temple or pigs sacrificed (as dispensationalists suppose) it would have been too late for the believers to flee.
Making any sense yet?
Similar but not identical and not parallel.
So what is the abomination of desolation: the armies surrounding Jerusalem or something abominable standing in the holy place??? It's one or the other -- choose, but choose wisely.
I don’t have to choose anything, the prophets pretty well spell it out, and I didn’t even have to use a dictionary..
What prophets? Webster or Oxford??? LOL
See if you ever read the bible, (which I really am convinced you don't)you would know the role of the prophets, and that they can predict either doom and gloom or hope for Israel- both national Israel and spiritual Israel. Scripture always has every answer that you are looking for, the answers to the questions are contained in the text.
I would tell you but you scoff way too much, will probably deny the scripture says what it does, although it says the same thing dozens of times, and then argue over the word "and" in the conjunctive or indicative state.
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.