Posted on 09/19/2005 9:13:46 AM PDT by xzins
Now you're simply being dishonest and delusional, again like a Roman Catholic. And again like with Roman Catholics, I wish you'd just be honest, admit you've got a decoder ring that enables you to see things that NONE of the original readers could POSSIBLY have seen.
But no, you've got your loyalties elsewhere than in Scripture. Which is why it's pointless to talk to you.
xzins, bro -- why do you waste your time?
Dan
It's an opportunity to explore the ideas of preterism and become conversant with them. It also forces me to respond to the history and scripture that gets presented.
I need that kickstart. It helps me keep my bible skills sharp.
It is one of the reasons I like discussing the calvinist stuff with you and others like you.....who treat the bible the same as I do in an eschatological discussion.
Your treatment of eschatology gives me confidence in the fairness of your treatment of election. Even though I have differences, I've made changes.
You're very kind and encouraging; thanks.
Dan
The Church is the rebuilt tabernacle of David. Seems reasobable to infer that the Church, being the Temple of the Living God is what is symbolized by Ezek. 40-48.
I must admit being a little biased; the esoteric claims of dispensationalism with regards to the Ezekiel Temple were what drove me away from dispensationalism, eventually to covenental amillenialism. (Christ is going to re-institute animal sacrifices in the Millenium? Puh-lease.)
The animal sacrifices NEVER removed sin. Ever. They were always symbolic.
There is no impediment for Christ continuing the symbolism....unless one is a member of PETA, of course. :>)
While that is an important discussion, Jude, more important is when one recognizes that the other side doesn't build its arguments on a whim, but on scripture combined with a healthy dose of reflection.
You say that you have scriptural reasons for heading toward amillennialism. That's good. Others have scriptural reasons for staying with premillennialism.
To recognize the good scriptural motives of the other is important with eschatology. One wise man I read recently summed it up as we are best when we recognize that all schools of eschatology are dealing with "probabilities."
That's an excruciatingly honest appraisal.
That reminds me of an objection to the song "Amazing Grace" that one of the pastors of my youth had. (He was a calvinist, independent baptist, btw.)
He didn't like the line "when we've been there 10000 years, bright shining as the sun, we've no less days to sing God's praise than when we first begun."
As he read it, the song was limiting eternity to 20,000 years (2 X 10,000). He had a point. (His rewording had logical problems, too, though I'll not go into them.)
Conditional eternity, like conditional promises, is not "building your house on a rock."
That's certainly true, if a little post-modern. Our understandings of the Scriptures are tinged with our preconceptions and biases.
The animal sacrifices NEVER removed sin. Ever. They were always symbolic. There is no impediment for Christ continuing the symbolism
Except Heb. 9 is crystal clear that there are no more sin offerings. To interpret Ezek. 40-48 as literally as you and Dan do, you must assume that there are still some sin offerings. There is no conceivable middle ground.
<< the esoteric claims of dispensationalism with regards to the Ezekiel Temple were what drove me away from dispensationalism >>
Hysterical. Suggesting that the words might actually mean something even remotely like what the original writer AND readers would have taken them to mean is "esoterical."
Wonder whether we'll ever know the real reason you bailed.
Dan
This presumes that John was speaking of material wealth, doubtful considering that the concerns of Christianity refers to spiritual needs.
While I agree witht the overall point that Revelation was written later, the above is not proof of that.
Regards
"I've had that article in my files for a while, and was thinking about posting it. There's a copy of it here, interestingly enough."
Very poor research, I must say. They didn't cite "Late Great Planet Earth" or any of the "Left Behind" series or their authors LeHay or Jenkins as resources.
So, on top of everything else, you have two ways of salvation. (I.e. you evidently believe, contra the writer to the Hebrews, that animal sacrifices actually did take away sin.)
What a dodge.
Dan
Nine chapters of symbolism?
Ezekiel describes the phsycial dimensions of the temple down to the last cubit. Ezekiel's physical descriptions of the millenial Temple are such that one can build a model of it based only on the description given in Ezekiel. You don't get that exact if you are merely going to symbolize something.
It appears that you are willing to admit that the Ezekiel Temple has never been built. Your position now appears to be that it will never be built and that it is only a symbol of.... something else.
Cop out. The existence of Ezekiel's actual temple contradicts your preconceived notions about eshcatology so rather than throw out your preconceived notions, you symbolize the passages rather than view them in the literal sense in which they were given.
The fact is that if Ezekiel's temple never gets built, then Ezekiel was a false prophet. Why should we judge today's false prophets by a measure less than we would judge Edgar Cayce or Jeanne Dixon or Charles Taze Russell? If their prophecies did not come to pass we didn't let them get away with symbolizing their predictions, we called them false prophets.
Why should we hold Ezekiel to a lesser standard?
Thanks for the ad hominem thought.
John was not speaking.
That is true. They are the product of your theology. Which is product of your misguided interpretive method.
These positions are undergirded by serious scripture and serious theological reflection.
Serious, yes. The question is whether they offer an accurate interpretation of the Bible. That is the issue in doubt.
??????
I called them "sin offerings," which is the language of Heb. 9 and Ezekiel 43.
"Bailed" implies I woke up one morning amillenial. Didn't happen that way; I spent 3 years asking questions and researching before I was willing to even consider calling myself such.
(I don't appreciate people second-guessing my motivations for abandoning dispensationalism. I consider it in the same class as the guy who told me I had to repent and ask God's forgiveness for leaving the Plymouth Brethren for a Bible Presbyterian church.)
(I should clarify that that guy was not in any way representative of the elders of the Plymouth Brethren, with whom my relations are entirely cordial and supportive.)
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.