The Church and Israel in the New Testament

>>>I could never arrive...": "Could never"? I don't know how to say it any other way - it sounds close minded to me.<<<

I have to draw the line. If you interpret "refusing to add words to the book of the Revelation" as closed minded, then you have an agenda; one which I caution everyone to avoid. Your interpretation (or the interpretation you are advocating) clearly denies Christ as per these instructions:

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Rev 22:18-19 KJV)

Did you ever bother to read that? To understand it? Have you ever stopped to consider how strange it might seem to others when you present ideologically-biased books like "Fox's Book Of Martyrs" as biblical?

May God bless you,

Philip

>>>“One little secret is this: it has been proven . . . that the Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem . . .”<<<

LOL! I believe that the approximate date of authorship will eventually be proven; but at this time I do not believe that it has been proven to have been written before the fall of Jerusalem, as you claim. But I appreciate your support, anyway. LOL!

Frankly, with the sketchy and contradictory "evidence" we have, the date of authorship cannot be proven, one way or the other; and any claims of absolute proof are nothing more than hot air.

>>>Notice, I didn’t include your last over the top words, “good riddance,” it doesn’t sound like something a Christian should say on a forum like this.<<<

So, you finally believe we should band together as "brothers in Christ." When I recall your earlier tirade against Presbyterian Minister and Professor, Dr. Keith Mathison, I find your change of heart refreshing, to say the least.

But, I want to be clear: I believe all Christians should be praying for the day we can say "good riddance" to the false, gloomy doctrines of dispensationalism/futurism.

>>>And, by the way, I’ve told you before, I’ll tell you again, I am not a dispensationalist, futurist, yes, but not dispensationalist.<<<

I am not a preterist, but you continue to insist I am. So take that, dispensationalist! LOL!

>>>It seems to irritate you why I won’t go point by point with you<<<

I know why you won't. You can't. Your doctrine is not defendable.

>>>I certainly could, especially on the early church fathers<<<

I am certain everyone would be thrilled to read your rebuttal of my previous quotes by the early Church Fathers. Maybe you will have a change of heart, so everyone can benefit from your vast wealth of knowledge.

>>>if I thought you a genuine seeder of truth I would, but I don’t waste time with debaters, it is clear to me that all you are is a debater.<<<

I see. You don't like to debate "debaters." Keep looking and I feel confident that one day you will find someone to debate who cannot debate. Mark Hitchcock did! LOL!

Philip

Why is your application (without explanation BTW) that all of the Revelation up to 20:8 has been fulfilled, and was fulfilled by the end of AD 70 any more or less "adding words to the Book of Revelation" than the application I suggest (with supporting scripture and evidence BTW) of 2000-year fulfillment of Chapters 2-3?

You confuse application of scripture with scripture itself. Application of scripture is not the same thing as adding words to scripture. You've put yourself into some sort of religious vacuum or black hole.

Anyone can quote scripture my FRiend. Quoting scripture is not an argument. An argument requires you to support your assertions and scriptural conclusions with relevant evidence and facts. Your statements are conclusory. You begin with an assertion and conclude with scripture with no support. That is not an argument. An argument requires you to support your assertions and conclusions with reasonable application of relevant evidence and facts.

Since I have offered by far more relevant evidence to support my assertions and conclusion than you, regardless of whether you subjectively agree with me or not, I have won this debate in the forum of ideas by the objective standard of having offered the greater weight of relevant evidence.

Bye-bye.

>>>You confuse application of scripture with scripture itself.<<<

I have confused nothing. But I do admit you have quite the imagination. You have confused the plain words of the scripture with dispensational/futuristic fantasies, and then demand that they are biblical!

>>>Anyone can quote scripture my FRiend.<<<

But not everyone can write a novel, nor do they wish too. Place me in that category. I will stick with quoting the final authority: God's Word.

>>>Quoting scripture is not an argument.<<<

The scripture is the argument. Why do you work so hard to avoid it? Your didactic statements about some flowery, unbiblical interpretations of the seven churches prove nothing except that someone had too much time on their hands.

>>>Since I have offered by far more relevant evidence to support my assertions and conclusion than you, regardless of whether you subjectively agree with me or not, I have won this debate in the forum of ideas by the objective standard of having offered the greater weight of relevant evidence.<<<

I did not realize it was a contest. But, frankly, I believe you are living in a fantasy world. In all sincerity, I did try to make some sense out of your "interpretations," but I failed. If your intent was to confuse, then you have won the debate.

Philip

“I am not a preterist, but you continue to insist I am.”

Against my better judgment, fully expecting more of your debate smoke and mirrors, I’ll ask you anyway: you say you are not a preterist, the following is Wikipedia’s description of preterism, sure sounds like you. Please tell us what there is about it that doesn’t describe you?

Preterist’s “Interpret prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened. Daniel is interpreted as events that happened in the second century BC while Revelation is interpreted as events that happened in the first century AD. Preterism holds that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, which is listed in Webster’s 1913 dictionary as a prefix denoting that something is ‘past’ or ‘beyond,’ signifying that either all or a majority of Bible prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70. Adherents of preterism are commonly known as preterists.”

Wikipedia:

“1) Interpret prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened. 2) Daniel is interpreted as events that happened in the second century BC while Revelation is interpreted as events that happened in the first century AD. 3) Preterism holds that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. <<<

>>>Please tell us what there is about it that doesn’t describe you?<<<

You do realize that is a Wikipedia definition and is subject to change, don't you? LOL!

Start with the first sentence. Then the second. I don't believe either of those is true; nor does Professor Mathison.

I do agree partly with the third; but I believe the Church (the New Covenant) began no later than the day of Pentecost (possibly before.) The original Christian Church was All Israel, and did not bring in the Gentiles until Cornelius (Acts chapter 10.) Their original mission was to seek out only the lost sheep of the house of Israel, aka the remnant, aka the "144,000." See Mat 15:24 and Mat 10:5-8, and include Mat 10:22-23, for the time frame on seeking the lost sheep.

Now, please tell us the difference between a futurist and a dispensationalist.

Thanks,

Philip

I notice you skipped this one:

Why is your application (without explanation BTW) that all of the Revelation up to 20:8 has been fulfilled, and was fulfilled by the end of AD 70 any more or less "adding words to the Book of Revelation" than the application I suggest (with supporting scripture and evidence BTW) of 2000-year fulfillment of Chapters 2-3?

It is certainly a reasonable question.

I guess I was right - you do not argue in good faith. You're statements border on nonsense because despite your flat denials, you confuse application of scripture with scripture itself. That seems to be a cornerstone of your approach. Your whole schtick is conclusory statements. Go find out what that means. You accuse, assert, and conclude with no reasonable support of fact or evidence. Doesn't seem to bother you. Fine, but I'll quit wasting my time with someone who won't participate in a reasonable discussion.

>>>I notice you skipped this one:<<<

>>>Why is your application (without explanation BTW) that all of the Revelation up to 20:8 has been fulfilled, and was fulfilled by the end of AD 70 any more or less "adding words to the Book of Revelation" than the application I suggest (with supporting scripture and evidence BTW) of 2000-year fulfillment of Chapters 2-3?<<<

I don't have to add anything to the scripture to arrive at that conclusion: it is derived directly from the words of Christ, the apostles, and some old testament prophecy. You will not find it in Scofield's Reference Notes. LOL!

I have started a new thread with the scripture that I used to derive that conclusion at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3156462/posts

Philip

all of the Revelation up to 20:8 has been fulfilled, and was fulfilled by the end of AD 70

I don't have to add anything to the scripture to arrive at that conclusion: it is derived directly from the words of Christ, the apostles, and some old testament prophecy.

Really.

Where pray tell, do the words of Christ, the apostles, and some old testament prophecy declare that all seven churches, the seven seals and all that are in them, the seven trumpets and all that are in them, and the seven vials of God's wrath and all that are in them were unequivocally and indisputably fulfilled by AD 70?

>>>When you tell me the difference between whatever you are and a preterist. There is none, of course. I know that, and you know that, you just won’t admit to it. You are t ypical of every preterist I’ve talked to. A deceitful sneaky bunch they are.<<<

You posted the definition of preterist in #42, and I showed you how it doesn’t fit me in #47. What is your problem?

Is your doctrinal foundation so weak you have to resort to smears and innuendo to defend your position?

How about doing us all a favor and point out the doctrinal errors in my post. I would appreciate it; and I am certain others would, as well.

Philip

>>>Where pray tell, do the words of Christ, the apostles, and some old testament prophecy declare that all seven churches, the seven seals and all that are in them, the seven trumpets and all that are in them, and the seven vials of God’s wrath and all that are in them were unequivocally and indisputably fulfilled by AD 70?<<<

There have been many good commentaries written over the past few centuries (many freely available) which demonstrate how the main theme of the Revelation was the destruction of Jerusalem and the transfer of the kingdom of God from the Jews to the Church; with Jerusalem being depicted as the Great Whore, Babylon the Great.

I mentioned some of the comparative arguments (for example, “the blood of the prophets”) in my recently posted article. I highly recommend you read it:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3156462/posts

This link contains many thousands of great books for downloading; and where I get most of my material:

https://archive.org/advancedsearch.php

For example, in the Creator box, type: MacDonald, James M

And you can download two great books:

“The Life and Writings of St John,” 1877
“The Coming of the Lord - A Key To The Book of the Revelation,” 1846

Philip

>>>Where pray tell, do the words of Christ, the apostles, and some old testament prophecy declare that all seven churches, the seven seals and all that are in them, the seven trumpets and all that are in them, and the seven vials of God's wrath and all that are in them were unequivocally and indisputably fulfilled by AD 70?<<<

After pondering my previous reply to your post, I realized that I forgot to mention something that I believe is most important to understanding the time-frame of the Revelation. Consider these verses about Babylon the Great:

"Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her." (Rev 18:20 KJV)

"And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." (Rev 18:24 KJV)

There have been no prophets since John! How can Babylon the Great possibly be a modern city?

Jesus said this about Jerusalem:

"And [ye, scribes and Pharisees,] say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (Mat 23:30-33 KJV)

"… I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:" (Luke 11:49 KJV)

"Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem." (Luke 13:33 KJV)

Therefore, it is most unlikely that Babylon the Great was any other city than the Jerusalem that was destroyed in AD 70.

May I recommend the book, "Before Jerusalem Fell," by Ken Gentry. It was his doctoral dissertation, and is an astonishing read. It is available at Amazon and other book stores, and is free online:

http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/2206_47e.htm

Philip

Look, man, I have told you what I am: Historic Premill (HP). HP’s are futurist, non-dispensationalist, post-trib, and premill (though there are some that tend to hold to historicist notions, and some that hold to some dispensationalist notions). Yet you can’t, or won’t, tell us what you are. You are indeed a preterist, flat out, yet you won’t admit it. Nothing meaningful can come out of a discussion like this if there isn’t honesty in this regard.

As I’m sure you know, like it or not, us interpreters of Bible prophecy get sorted out as whether we are preterist, historicist, or futurist. Past, present, or future interpreters. I interpret Christ’s Olivet Discourse, the prophetic passages in the epistles, and Revelation, as referring to the future. (With a few exceptions: the fall of Jerusalem, 70 AD a precursory event, the seven churches of Revelation “the things which are,” 1:19 - I agree with PapaNew who sees them prophetic of church history)

As to Revelation, the great tribulation, a period of 3 1/2 years, with it’s beast, mark, and image, Armageddon, the first resurrection, second coming, and millennial reign of Christ, have not happened yet. The seals haven’t been opened yet, the trumpets haven’t blown yet, the vials (bowls of wrath) haven’t been poured out yet.

Now you say you are not a preterist, be up front for once with us will you? And please tell us which of these things I mentioned have already been fulfilled, are in the past. And which haven’t been fulfilled yet, are in the future. Simple enough: past = preterist, future = futurist.

Yes, and before you ding me on this, I didn’t mention the idealist interpretation. it is supposed to be out there somewhere, I’ve yet to meet one. Not here on FR, at least. So I didn’t bother to include it.

Papanew, I don't like pinging other people when I am not directly addressing them, but what's-his-name forced my hand. This is his tirade in arrow-brackets, and my response.

>>>Look, man, I have told you what I am: Historic Premill (HP). HP’s are futurist, non-dispensationalist, post-trib, and premill (though there are some that tend to hold to historicist notions, and some that hold to some dispensationalist notions). Yet you can’t, or won’t, tell us what you are. You are indeed a preterist, flat out, yet you won’t admit it. Nothing meaningful can come out of a discussion like this if there isn’t honesty in this regard.<<<

Look, man, I have told you I am a postmillennialist. I even submitted myself to one your childish posts and explained how I did not fit the Wikipedia definition of preterist; but you insist on maintaining a false narrative. Please join the debate on the scriptures and biblical history, and stop with the name-calling, tirades, and other kindergarten tactics.

>>>>As I’m sure you know, like it or not, us interpreters of Bible prophecy get sorted out as whether we are preterist, historicist, or futurist. Past, present, or future interpreters. I interpret Christ’s Olivet Discourse, the prophetic passages in the epistles, and Revelation, as referring to the future. (With a few exceptions: the fall of Jerusalem, 70 AD a precursory event, the seven churches of Revelation “the things which are,” 1:19 - I agree with PapaNew who sees them prophetic of church history)<<<

When are you going to bless us with your knowledge of the scriptures, if you have any? I have read that childish tirades are atypical of a scholar, so I would suggest you avoid such tirades in the future if you intend to fool anyone.

>>>As to Revelation, the great tribulation, a period of 3 1/2 years, with it’s beast, mark, and image, Armageddon, the first resurrection, second coming, and millennial reign of Christ, have not happened yet. The seals haven’t been opened yet, the trumpets haven’t blown yet, the vials (bowls of wrath) haven’t been poured out yet.<<<

Prove it! I am challenging you.

>>>Now you say you are not a preterist, be up front for once with us will you? And please tell us which of these things I mentioned have already been fulfilled, are in the past. And which haven’t been fulfilled yet, are in the future. Simple enough: past = preterist, future = futurist.<<<

I told you where I stand, and even proved it, line-by-line, in the definition you supplied from Wikipedia. Please refrain from casting aspersions, and present your arguments in a more dignified manner.

>>>Yes, and before you ding me on this, I didn’t mention the idealist interpretation. it is supposed to be out there somewhere, I’ve yet to meet one. Not here on FR, at least. So I didn’t bother to include it.<<<

What is your interpretation of the Revelation, and how did you derive it? I personally believe you are a dispensationalist, incognito, and that is why you refuse to debate the scriptures and early Church Fathers, as presented to you in previous posts.

Philip

Like I said, nothing meaningful can happen when you’ve got somebody who can’t, or won’t, answer whether or not the things I mentioned are in the past (preterist) or not. You won’t answer because, like Hanegraaf in the debate, and every other preterist, they are a dishonest shysters.

Anybody with one eye and half blind, can see what you are, you are, not just a preterist, you are a full preterist, and a postmillennialist.

Like Boogieman said on this other thread you’ve started (on the 144k), just now took a look at it, talking to you is like talking to a wall. A waste of time. I have zero respect for gutless cowards who haven’t got enough courage to say what they are. I feel like I’m talking with some sort of long haired communist hippy or something. Gives me the creeps. Enough, I’m out of here.

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.