Posted on 09/19/2005 9:13:46 AM PDT by xzins
I'd just add that anything that rests EVERYTHING on something not evident in the text, such as precise dating, is dubious at best. If preterism is true, we might as well give up on meaningful hermeneutics.
But ditto amillennialism and postmillenialism, for that matter.
Dan
It seems like all of us like arguments from silence sometimes and sometimes we don't.
Excellent point.
EVERYTHING rests on a date for Revelation of about 70 AD.
All of prophetic literature and especially that regarding the return of Christ is dependent on this dating. The reverberations of this teaching touch on other doctrine as well.
Is it any wonder that they also must discount the sacrifices of the Ezekiel Temple? And their argument is that those cannot be symbolic.
What does that do to the Book of Hebrews that clearly states that ALL OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICES were symbolic....looking forward to the sacrifice of Christ?
Are we now to believe that the blood of bulls and goats COULD take away sin?
"But ditto amillennialism and postmillenialism, for that matter."
But not pre-trib hermeneutics, please not pre-trib. It has taken me so long to be comfortable I don't think I have enough time left to settle in on another. Besides, believing another eschatology would be great tribulation and we are going home before that happens.
Well, I'd not go to the stake for specifically pre-TRIB hermeneutics, though I am a pre-tribber. I would for pre-MILL, and I would for basic Dispensationalism. To me, those are sure things, based on direct, unambiguous statements of Scripture. The case for the pretrib rapture is, to my mind, more inferential.
Dan
The passage in question neither proves nor disproves anything, so what is your point?
He ignores the fact that Paul never mentions someone as important as John in any of his letters to the churches and Timothy and yet by a cursory reading of John's letters to the churches you know he had not only an intimate knowledge of the spiritual condition of the churches but that the churches were intimately familiar with and respected John.
Your last comment is puzzling.
You do understand that was Jesus speaking in Rev. 2 and 3, not John. He was only the seer. The "letters" in Revelation are of a different sort than, say, the letters of Paul. "To the angel of the church of XXX write, ..." There's no indication from Revelation that John had personal, ordinary knowledge of any of these conditions. It was a supernatural revelation.
That's why it's not a good argument. Too selective and speculative.
If you read the OT literally and ignore the NT, they they could. Oops. I just applied dispensational hermeneutics.
If a Christian were to read the OT as having a sacrifice that actually took away sin, then they'd be guilty of not reading the NT, wouldn't they. And the grammatical historical method wouldn't have been followed.
Then why would John expect the churches to believe anything he wrote if they did not know him personally and respect him? Just because he said he had a vision would not convince anybody, especially with all the itinerant preachers going around with different doctrines.
Right; that's the amill dodge in the hopes of avoiding the embarrassment of explaining why eight meticulously detailed chapters of prediction end up meaning (A) nothing at all, at worst; or (B) nothing even remotely like what they say, at best.
The blood of bulls and goats never did take away sin. They didn't 3000 years ago, they won't during the 3000 years.
Dr. Feinberg well asked, "Why is it OK for Gentiles to have a commemorative sacrament, but not Jews?"
It's the subtle, usually wholly-unintended anti-Semitism of the amills, robbing and mutilating the Jews' promised blessings, and leaving them the curses.
Dan
Well, I guess you're right. Being an apostle probably wasn't a big deal.
My text last week was Deut 28....
I like your line, "robbing and mutilating the Jews' promised blessings, and leaving them the curses.
One wonders about Paul's warning that we not be arrogant regarding that branch lopped off when we were grafted in.
Perhaps the "time of the Gentiles" end will be ushered in by theologies that are arrogant toward the promises God made to the true remnant of Israel.
Well, if it is the sin of unbelief to refuse to affirm promises God has made to ME -- and it is -- then what is it to refuse to affirm the promises God has made to ANOTHER?
Unbelief, certainly, with a liberal helping of arrogance.
Dan
You are correct. Give that man a prize.
So you can understand that when those of us who follow the grammatical-historical method (as opposed to the dispensationalist "literalist" version) interpret the typology of the temple, the sarcifices, the priesthood, Israel, etc. in terms of Christ and His finished work on the cross, and conclude that prophecies like Exekiel 40-48 are descriptive of Christ and His church, we are being consistent with that method.
If you read OT prophecies in isolation from the NT to support your literalist presuppositions, that's a fundamental failure to follow the grammatical-historical method. Worse yet, if you read into the NT in order to support your theories (ala the recent discussion on Acts 1:6,7), then you do additional violence to God's revelation.
The end of the cursings and blessings of Deuteronomy goes into detail about the falling away of the people and their various exiles.
As I saw it, they have just returned to their land from the final exile mentioned by Moses.
I don't think he said he was an apostle. I think he said he was a servant, so how would they know if they weren't acquainted with him? In fact, that was one of the problems with authorship.
C'mon, TC.
You know that the Ezekiel Temple is in the context of the Davidic King sitting on the Davidic Throne.
You know that the premil's don't just create things like the 1000 year reign....they appear in scripture.
You know that the question of the apostles to Jesus about the restoration of the kingdom CAN BE seen easily (if not best) from this perspective.
We don't arbitrarily create these things. These positions are undergirded by serious scripture and serious theological reflection.
I suppose another way of interpreting the scriptures (in a preterist/convenantal sense) is just to interpret words like eternal and everlasting to mean "a long time". IOW if we interpret "everlasting" to mean for several generations, then that solves the problem of the everlasting covenant in regard to the Land of Canaan and other "everlasting" Covenants promised to the Jews.
Of course then we have to wonder what it means when Jesus promises us everlasting or eternal life. Does that mean it is conditional or that it will only last for a long time?
It is interesting to note that the Land of Canaan has never really been possessed by the Christians, but that Jews have inhabited that land since the time of Joshua. They are now once again not only in posession of Canaan, but in control of the Land which God promised them. I don't see that the Church (which has supposedly replaced Israel in regard to the covenants) has any ownership interest in Canaan (other than perhaps a few disputed holy spots).
I would think that if the covenant promises to Israel were now applicable to the church, then the Church would have posession of the Holy Land. It doesn't. It never really did. So what does that mean?
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.