Moses or Christ? Paul’s Reply To Dispensational Error

>>>You put forth a list of theologians which means their views and motives are open for examination. I found quite a few who are skeptics of God’s Word. That is quite important to me.<<<

God’s Word is very important to me. But, again, the question originally presented was not about my feelings.

>>>I do have to applaud your effort to present preterism on its own terms but you are still heavily relying on other views as a contrast approach.<<<

Please rephrase that. I don’t know what you are implying.

Philip

How about something like, “Hey, we have been resurrected! That is why we wrote nothing after the destruction of Jerusalem! Not even a “We Told You So!”” Something like that.

As I pointed out before, your story has the Jews raptured/resurrected in 70AD from the four corners of the earth, and the Gentile believers left behind, abandoned, and with no clue as to what transpired. What you teach is not postmillenialism; it is partial preterism.

>>>So I guess you have no issues with scholars who deny apostolic authorship of the NT? <<<

You brought up Firmin Abauzit. Did you ever read his 1730 work, An Historical Discourse on the Apocalypse? You might be surprised what you find in there. It is available somewhere on the internet, but I don’t recall where. It was one of the earlier books I found out there.

Philip

>>>Ok then you should know many on your list of scholars are liberal frauds.<<<

Would your list of those defending your doctrine contain a lot of liberal frauds? I suspect it would.

>>>Perhaps you will be more careful in providing laundry lists from your personal independent studies.<<<

Why would I want to do that? It is much more fun seeing how the creed police react.

>>Since your studies are independent then again you researched all of the scholars?<<<

Not yet. But I will. I am slowly accumulating a list of those that have been recognized as not having endorsed the late date. When I say slowly, new finds have been rather scarce, of late. When I have time, I seek out a copy of one of those books and read, at least, the section that explains thier perspective on the dating. Typically, I am not the least bit concerned about the other aspects of their doctrines. The only doctrines that I am truly concerned about are the new-age rapture type doctrines. I feel they have harmed Christianity, and our nation by steering Christians away from their roles as government and culture watchdogs. Frankly, anyone who cannot see the damage that has been done to our culture in the past century is part of the problem.

I am well settled in my belief that I am in a “school” of one. No preterist believes like me, and can’t. No so-called “partial preterist” believes like me, that I have read about so far. No creedalist can believe like me and adhere to all of the major creeds. And, of course, no futurist seems to have a clue what I am talking about. LOL!

I know you are just trying to be harmlessly annoying; but will you please answer me this one question? How much of your understanding of the scripture is self-taught, and how much is cookie-cutter doctrine from the traditions of men? How much from traditions created by men in the past 200 years? Do you believe in a separate, “pre-tribulation” “rapture?”

Philip

>>>As I pointed out before, your story has the Jews raptured/resurrected in 70AD from the four corners of the earth, and the Gentile believers left behind, abandoned, and with no clue as to what transpired.<<<

Abandoned is your grim word, not mine. My explanation would be, they have been saved by the wonderful grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and along with all newer Christians (Jews and Gentiles) they will one day be part of the second resurrection at which time they will gathered into His glorious kingdom. I also will be part of the second resurrection, with His grace.

>>>What you teach is not postmillenialism; it is partial preterism<<<

That is very interesting. Do you know any partial preterists that believe like me? Don’t think for a minute it would be any of the Presbyterian historians I have endorsed. They are all strictly “by-the-creed.”

As I pointed out earlier, you are a Catholic that doesn’t even follow his own Catholic bible; so why do you think your preaching has any affect on me other than further convincing me that you adhere to an apostate religion? Maybe apostate is not the right word. How can one fall away when they never arrived?

Philip

>>>Again when were the Roman Armies defeated and became a feast of crows?<<<

I don't see anywhere in the Revelation that the Roman Army was defeated. They were the armies of the Lord.

The feast for the buzzards, eagles and wild beasts were the corpses of the 1.1 million Jews and Israelites slaughtered in Jerusalem. There was no one to bury them. This was Moses on the destruction of Jerusalem:

"And thy carcase shall be meat unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and no man shall fray them away." (Deu 28:26 KJV)

Philip

You didn’t answer my question: Do you support the antiChristian doctrines of the non-Messianic, Orthodox Jews?

Philip

>>>Anyone who imagines they must insult, accuse, defame, slander, patronize, LIE or degrade instead of engaging in a discussion on FACTS, demonstrates an inability to defend their position against others who clearly hold to a more Biblical hermeneutic.<<< I agree 100%.

Glad to hear it, now explain why in this thread you are insulting, defaming, patronizing and degrading those who do not hold to your rejection of Dispensationalism? That seems to be your default tone on just about every thread I have seen you in when someone defends their opposing position. It's why I hesitate to join a thread you originate. Rather than listening respectfully to others' views, you jump almost immediately to attack mode. Someone secure in what they believe and why they believe it wouldn't need to behave that way. I can defend what I believe, rebuke what I think is error and STILL be respectful towards individuals. I don't see a need to be condescending towards others who may disagree with me.

As for playing "victim", I was referring to your defensiveness over how a previous thread proceeded and your seeming inability to understand why others were asking you to open a new thread where the subject you favored could be addressed rather than continue to pour fuel on the fire of criticism Catholics were pointing to as our failure of unity. Please tell me you finally get that?

As to the Elijah disagreement - even though we aren't supposed to drag arguments across from other threads - my contention was in disputing the idea that John the Baptist was THE Elijah the prophet reborn rather than him coming in the "spirit of Elijah" as Jesus said. That is being both consistent in hermeneutics as well as sound Biblical doctrine. Christians don't believe in reincarnation.

Please answer the following:

1. Where in Josephus account does he specifically say that Jesus Christ, the son of man, came?
2. Where in Josephus account did he witnessed the risen Christ returning in glory? Or was Josephus not an eye-witness to the things he wrote about?
3. Where in Josephus account does he mention that the kings of the earth were slain?
4. Where does he mention that two individuals were thrown into the lake of fire?

You are shoe-horning Josephus into the Biblical text ...

Rev 1:7 Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him.

Preterism reduces the second coming of Christ, the most spectacular event in human history, to an non-event that was kinda recorded by three people.

But in actuality ... we have not had our argument on first principles. First principles would dictate that we begin with the particulars of our theological methods ... in which dispensational and non-dispensational views differ in the construction of a systematic theology.

If we are to continue this discussion ... that is where we must venture.

>>>Glad to hear it, now explain why in this thread you are insulting, defaming, patronizing and degrading those who do not hold to your rejection of Dispensationalism?<<<

You would never understand, boatbums. You can only see one side.

You didn’t answer my question: Do you support the antiChristian doctrines of the non-Messianic, Orthodox Jews?

Are they your brethren ?

Abandoned is your grim word, not mine.

It seems to fit your teaching which, as you indicated in comments, based on your private study and interpretation. Of course it is evident that you are using Preterist sources and have adopted Preterism as your own. You indicated no man discipled you in this doctrine. You call the Catholic Church apostate and you name Nero as The Antichrist/Beast of Revelation. You hold the truth was almost universally undiscovered (because you say all the believing witnesses to the Second Coming were raptured/resurrected and aren't allowed to confirm your account to us) by genuine Christians (let's dispense with your liberal theologians who deny the Scriptures), and yet you, Demar, Gentry, and some others, mainly Presbyterians have found the pearl of great price. It won't be long until books are sold and a new sect or denomination arises; this pattern of behavior continues.

You polemicize Jews who seek to obey the Torah by the light they have knowing full well the Apostle Paul told us For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

>>>>As to the Elijah disagreement - even though we aren't supposed to drag arguments across from other threads - my contention was in disputing the idea that John the Baptist was THE Elijah the prophet reborn rather than him coming in the "spirit of Elijah" as Jesus said. That is being both consistent in hermeneutics as well as sound Biblical doctrine. Christians don't believe in reincarnation.<<<<

No, boatbums. There was more to it than that. You followed up with a made-up claim that Elijah's coming was prophesied in other places, and I challenged you on it. In defending that claim, you made a ridiculous assertion that could only be interpreted as "John was both Elijah and not Elijah." I challenged you on that, and left it with, "You can't have it both ways, boatbums." You do remember that dialogue, don't you, boatbums?

And since we are not supposed to drag arguments across threads, why did you bring it up? But I am glad you did. Now we can get to the heart of who really has the consistent hermeneutics: This is the argument in question:

You had made the assertion in #476 of that thread that John could not have been Elijah because John said he was not Elijah.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3116855/posts?page=476#476

Part of your assertion included the scripture where John said this:

"And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias." (John 1:21-23 KJV)

So, John said he was not Elias, but that HE WAS "the voice of one crying in the wilderness;" and was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah [40:3.] There is no denying that.

Now this was the next exchange from:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3116855/posts?page=494#494

[I am adding clarifying comments in square brackets, like these]

============================================= Me: >>>>I am asking again: please provide me a list of those other prophets who spoke of Elijah. Thanks<<<<

Boatbums: >>>Malachi 4:5 specifically and Isaiah 40:3 and Joel 2:31 allude to the purpose of Elijah in the end times.<<<

[Note you said that Elijah was mentioned in Isaiah 40:3. That was the same verse that John the Baptist said he fulfilled.]

Me: Everyone knows Elijah is mentioned in Malachi. If the other two verses were referring to Elijah, would they not mention him by name? The Joel reference is silent. Isaiah 40:3 is clearly referring to John the Baptist, which you confirmed in your John 1:19-25 reference.

[So after presenting the scripture to back up my claim (which I wish everyone did), I wrote:]

Me: You can't have it both ways, boatbums. John is either Elijah, or he is the "voice of one crying in the wilderness," or both. But he cannot be, as you claim, Elijah in one instance as "the voice," and not in the other.

=================================================

To summarize, you provided two different interpretations for the same verse: Isaiah 40:3. I know it was unintentional, but your logic had been this:

1. John could not have been Elijah because he said he was not (but John did say in the same passage you referenced that he was the fulfillment of Isaiah 40:3.)

Then you said:

2. Elijah was mentioned in Isaiah 40:3

Again, boatbums: if Elijah is mentioned in Isaiah 40:3, and John said he was the one mentioned in Isaiah 40:3, then John the Baptist was Elijah.

Otherwise, Elijah WAS NOT mentioned in Isaiah 40:3, and your interpretation was made up (by someone) out of thin air.

Philip

I don't see anywhere in the Revelation that the Roman Army was defeated. They were the armies of the Lord. The feast for the buzzards, eagles and wild beasts were the corpses of the 1.1 million Jews and Israelites slaughtered in Jerusalem. There was no one to bury them. This was Moses on the destruction of Jerusalem:

If the above is the case, then which Jewish leader was the beast? If the Roman Army functioned as the Army of the Lord, then the beast could not be fighting for the Lord, right?

Let's look:

Revelation 19:

17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in the midst of heaven, “Come and gather together for the supper of the great God, 18 that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, both small and great.”

19 And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. 20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.

We have the BEAST, the kings of the earth and their armies arrayed AGAINST our LORD. Not helping Him defeat the Jewish armies holed up in Jerusalem.

So how can the Beast come from Rome and yet be arrayed against the Armies of Jesus Christ? In your AD 70 Jerusalem scenario either the Roman Army is for Christ or against Christ. You stated Rome was an instrument of Christ, then why are the armies of the instrument of Christ arrayed against Christ? This might be a good time to declare 'who' you see as the Beast of Revelation. Was it Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius or Vespasian?

Not yet. But I will. I am slowly accumulating a list of those that have been recognized as not having endorsed the late date. When I say slowly, new finds have been rather scarce, of late. When I have time, I seek out a copy of one of those books and read, at least, the section that explains thier perspective on the dating. Typically, I am not the least bit concerned about the other aspects of their doctrines.

Then it is my hope you will be "shocked straight" when you read some of the books on the list of authors and scholars you provided. I also hope you can read German since many of the German works were not translated to English.

I have been beating the drum on some of these authors because of their stance (or lack thereof) on the accuracy of Scriptures and their positions that most of the NT does not come from apostolic authors but later. You may applaud their works for their earlier dates for Revelation, but should be concerned how they viewed the NT canon. Most believed the majority of the NT was written in the second century AD and only a few epistles and maybe one Gospel dated to the 1st century AD. If you are familiar with mid to late 19th Century European theological movements (heavy in Germany) they were heavily skeptical of the authenticity of scriptures. It was called the Rationalist movement in theology (skeptics). A lot of their works were shortly refuted in the 20th century with great archaeological finds confirming Biblical historical events. Some of their skepticism and rationalism survives today with regards to the JEDP theory which we see in the RC church et. al.

It was not my intent to "poo poo" your thread and attack the source. I found it odd that you who post with great respect for God's Word would use such sources which are clearly enemies to the Gospel. I will chalk it up as you said which is you need to further review the sources.

>>>Where in Josephus account does he specifically say that Jesus Christ, the son of man, came?<<<

dartuser, I hope you trying to maintain a serious discussion.

Josephus was an Orthodox Jewish Priest, Historian, and Jewish General who was captured early on in the war. He wouldn’t know Jesus from Adam, except for maybe his reputation as a trouble-maker. Further, he was not on the mount of Olives with the disciples, so how could he know Jesus was even coming in the clouds of heaven?

Tacitus was a Roman Historian and Senator. He also would not know Jesus, except that maybe as the founder of a trouble-making group called Christians.

I was merely providing you and others with some of the many strange phenomena that occurred during the destruction of Jerusalem, including what both characterized as armies of soldiers flying around in the clouds. There were many other instances of strange and coincidental phenomena.

>>>Preterism reduces the second coming of Christ, the most spectacular event in human history, to an non-event that was kinda recorded by three people.<<<

That answered my question. You are not interested in a serious discussion. And your method of interpretation (which conveniently ignores all O.T. imagery of clouds and the powers of heaven) can mean “anything and everything,” depending on the imagination of the interpreter. How many different “Antichrists” do we have to endure?

It was, by the way, the most spectacular event in human history: just not in your modern view of history. The center of the practice of old testament theology was destroyed in a spectacular fashion; the old covenant was gone, and God’s chosen people were reduced to a mere remnant, in a matter of forty and two months, as predicted. Further, there was no one left with the power of the holy spirit that could provide us with any written record of the event.

Of course, those that heeded Jesus’ warning fled Judaea for the mountains. We know from historical records that many fled to the east to a place called Pella. But why no written record from the aftermath? That puzzles me as much as it appears to puzzle you.

Philip

How much of your understanding of the scripture is self-taught, and how much is cookie-cutter doctrine from the traditions of men? How much from traditions created by men in the past 200 years? Do you believe in a separate, “pre-tribulation” “rapture?”

Fair questions. Frankly, I am 'dogmatic' on the literal Second Coming of Christ, first and second resurrections as yet future. Everything else in the eschatology realm of being good folks can debate vigorously on.

This is my reasoning. I believe our Christian doctrines must be built on solid scriptural evidence. We all agree I am sure saved by the Grace of God, through faith in the shed Blood of Christ Jesus is a solid Christian doctrine because EVERY apostle demonstrated this in word, action and power. The OT testifies to the NT on this doctrine of salvation. That is one and the most important Christian doctrine, I am sure you agree. It is a Christian doctrine because the scriptural evidence is a "homerun", meaning there are multiple sources for such.

On eschatology many have scriptural evidence for certain theories but not the insurmountable type we see with the doctrines of salvation and Nature of Christ (Christology). I do as a literalist believe the Second Coming of Messiah will be the same way as He ascended in Acts 1. That is clear, literal and confirmed in Revelation in several places. So on that we will no doubt fight like cats and dogs to the end. On the other matters, we can fight like cats and dogs but I won't deny fellowship at the Lord's Table with someone of your opposing views.

How did I come to my prophecy views? Same as most of us here. At some point in our lives we were called and became Born Again, and put on Christ. Whoever our first elder or pastor may have been had an initial influence on us before we could examine the entire scriptures for ourselves and grow and mature with guidance from the Holy Spirit. So for me it was an Evangelical church with a long history of dispensationalists, however I quickly learned there were other views as well. It was never taught as a doctrine (dispensationalism) but a "possible way to approach eschatology." No they were not "dogmatic" about many prophecy matters. They were strict on wanting the flock to examine the scriptures, but at least in my church the focus was on the Great Commission and serving Jesus Christ and our fellow brothers and sisters in Him. So, no I am not a rabid dispensationalist. I frankly agree with many of the principles but am not dogmatic. Frankly some of the 'dispensationalism' I see on the internet these days truly concerns me as well. Some churches have allowed their eschatology to leak into their doctrine of salvation and in other areas as well.

Same with the rapture question. I believe there is ample evidence in scriptures for a "caught up" of the church before the actual Second Coming of Christ, but the timing of such of before, during or after the tribulation is quite debatable as one examines the scriptures. All three views have scriptural evidence but it is not the insurmountable type. That is why we can disagree on such and debate such as we do on FR with many other issues. For example, just in the "to" of this post (besides you) there are pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib rapture theorists. The church where I was first saved, it was the same. There were some spirited discussions back in those days over some decaf coffee in the basement:)

But in actuality ... we have not had our argument on first principles. First principles would dictate that we begin with the particulars of our theological methods ... in which dispensational and non-dispensational views differ in the construction of a systematic theology.

Now that would be interesting. One of the reasons I posted the long piece from Irenaeus. It is the earliest account of a Christian theologian addressing prophecy. My point was he was a futurist. I guess that is where the premise begins. How does one address prophecy? Literal, allegory, historical and whether fulfilled, yet to be fulfilled and a mix of both.

>>>But in actuality ... we have not had our argument on first principles. First principles would dictate that we begin with the particulars of our theological methods ... in which dispensational and non-dispensational views differ in the construction of a systematic theology. If we are to continue this discussion ... that is where we must venture.<<<

I agree 100%. I will provide mine first:

I believe Jesus and the apostles were speaking directly to their immediate audiences, and not to us, except in a general sense. For example, when Jesus said to his disciples:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (Mat 24:34 KJV)

I believe he meant exactly what he said: not only because of those words, but the context, which was this from Matthew, Mark and Luke:

"And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (Mat 24:2-3 KJV)

"Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?" (Mark 13:4 KJV)

"And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?" (Luke 21:7 KJV)

The "end of the world" part in Mat 24:3 was confusing at first, until I associated it with this:

"And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." (Mat 12:32, KJV)

Even then the talk of two worlds was confusing. Only recently, when I obtained a Strong's Concordance, did I realize the disciples were referring to their "age", and not the "world."

The notion that Christ was not coming in the generation of his disciples, as he promised them, never crossed my mind.

In a nutshell, I try to avoid all opinions and doctrines of men. I let the "scripture interpret the scripture." I confess that I only recently began to use that quoted expression after I heard John Otis use it in one of his lectures.

Philip

>>>Then it is my hope you will be “shocked straight” when you read some of the books on the list of authors and scholars you provided.<<<

You really should read what I write before commenting. This is what I wrote:

“Typically, I am not the least bit concerned about the other aspects of their doctrines.”

I know you are going to beat this out-of-context dead horse to death, and then bring it back to life so you can beat it again. So let me explain one more time, using different words:

“NOTHING has shocked me more than the words I have heard and read from dispensationalists.”

If any of the other doctrines gain that kind of prominence, and start doing that kind of damage to Christianity, I will pay more attention. Until that time, I will leave the other doctrines to those who have more time on their hands.

Philip