Yes, it's all about the Catholic Church, even when Joseph told his dream, it was hidden between the lines of Scripture as the future Virgin Mary of the Catholic Church. All the prophets, all the Scripture referring to ISRAEL was just a hidden way of prophesying about the future Catholic Church. From Eve to Revelation, the Catholic Church runs completely through the Bible, between the EXPLICIT Word of God, but always there, IMPLICITY. Between the lines, waiting, waiting, for Peter to finally get the keys to the kingdom, and then voila', the keys unlock the secret meaning to God's Word. And it suddenly makes sense. THere is no Israel. It is the Catholic Church. Go back in our Bible and change Israel to Rome, and change Jews to Catholics. And then we shall understand your beliefs.
Now we know why Rome is so anti-semitic
That's exactly how "proofs" from Scripture always seem to work:
IF you start with a few verses here and there, you can construct a system. Once the 'bones' of the system are in place, then other verses 'obviously' conform to it. Those verses are taken as further "proof", and finally the certainty of the person who has followed that path leads to disparaging others.
But the others followed the same process. They started with different verses and different concepts as the 'bones' of their system, so they end up with different conclusions.
I can see the attraction of the dispensationalist system. But I have seen systems come and go in a number of different endeavors. I've seen the same kind of fervent embrace of the 'key which opens up everything' in Hegelians and Marxists. A certain version of dispensationalism has cropped up before, notably with Joachim de Flores in the 12th century -- or at least with his followers.
Josephs dream might or might not be related to the description of Mary (or whoever) in revelation. Is it related to the speech in Job about the stars? Think how much labor could be spent on finding and classifying Scriptural references to moon and stars, and on arguing over the rightness of the 'dividing.'
And it would take so much longer than it needed because every disagreement would have each side saying that the other didn't accept the authority of Scripture. There would be tiffs and hurt feelings and stomping out of the room.
The tidyness of the system would lead to assurance, the assurance to passion, fabulous preaching and fabulous fights would ensue, each side thinking the other was either out and out wicked or inadvertently wicked because of their stupidity. There would be divisions, as there are among Hegelians, Marxists, and Dispensationalists.
In my opinion Marxists and Hegelians have history as a kind of inkblot. At least the Bible is finite (in some respects) and so somewhat fewer assumptions and forced likenesses arise.
But when there are divisions even among dispensationalists, well, nobody says Euclid was nuts, or, within his sphere, Newton. The data, principles, and conclusions are just not there with the mathematical certainty of Newtonian mechanics. But the sense of certainty is strong -- on all the differing sides which claim the Bible as their source and their own system and creed as the uniquely correct interpretation or dividing of the Scriptures.
It's clearly persuasive to some. It isn't to me.