Hermeneutics vs. "Herd-meneutics"

[CoreIssue]

That, obviously, is conjecture. You are making a bold statement and accusation as if fact, and yet at the same time asking a question, to which you do not have the answer.

But to answer, let me ask you: If Jesus is that true manna come down from heaven - how will you eat of it?

You made the claims without proof.

 

[CoreIssue]

If you can produce one fragment of scripture depicting a future physical kingdom from the gospels or epistles, you can prove that you are not adding to the book of Revelation. Until then you are.

Proof of the MK and the new law under the covenant to the houses of Israel and Judah.
Zechariah 14:16
16 Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles.

 

[Phoneman777]

You know the very early Church were Premillennialists as well as the Apostles in Acts chap 1?

Yes, Historicism always agrees with Scripture.

 

[CoreIssue]

Yes, Historicism always agrees with Scripture.

That is not true.

An example claiming revelation has already been fulfilled.

 

[Phoneman777]

That may be, but when you bring all the Scriptures together relating to the 42 months, one cannot escape a literal 42 months of 30 prophetic days each (which equals a literal 3 1/2 years).

We have the following descriptions all applied to the same period:
1. Time, times, and half a time (or the dividing of time)
2. One thousand two hundred and three score days
3. Forty and two months
1260 days/30 = 42 months/12 = 3 1/2 years = time (1 yr) + times (2 yrs) + half a time (6 months).

And he [the Antichrist] shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. (Dan 7:25)

Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. (Dan 8:13,14)

Fully agree with all this.

Also 2,300 days/30 = 76.67 months/12 = 6.39 years = 6 yrs and 5 mths (approx).

What's the point of this calculation?

 

[ScottA]

You made the claims without proof.

So, what...because I have imparted knowledge without you having the proof, you accuse me?

Better if you had asked for an explanation.

 

[CoreIssue]

So, what...because I have imparted knowledge without you having the proof, you accuse me?

Better if you had asked for an explanation.

No, better for you to not claim imparting knowledge without backing it would proof.

 

[Phoneman777]

That is not true.

An example claiming revelation has already been fulfilled.

How long will those ignorant of Historicism continue to make presumptuous claims about what it teaches?

HISTORICISM DOES NOT TEACH REVELATION HAS BEEN FULFILLED.

THAT TEACHING BELONGS TO JESUIT PRETERISM, THE HALF SISTER HARLOT TO YOUR BELOVED JESUIT FUTURISM.

 

[CoreIssue]

How long will those ignorant of Historicism continue to make presumptuous claims about what it teaches?

HISTORICISM DOES NOT TEACH REVELATION HAS BEEN FULFILLED.

THAT TEACHING BELONGS TO JESUIT PRETERISM, THE HALF SISTER HARLOT TO YOUR BELOVED JESUIT FUTURISM.

Knock off the Jesuit nonsense.

 

[marks]

Only dismissive waves of the hand and high sounding "His ways are not our ways" platitudes are the only answers we hear in response to the bold challenges of Historicism to popular eschatological error.

Really?

No one gives a reasoned response?

For instance, Paul reminded the Thessalonian saints that he had told them the identity of the restrainer which prevented the rise of the Man of Sin, but refused to mention it by name in his letter to them. Why?

What if we take this example.

Anything from Scripture to tell us that this restrainer is the Roman Empire? If not, then you have no Scriptural authority to define it as such, is that not true?

So we can take the writings of men as authorative over Scripture?

If then the extant early church writings are in your mind equal to Scripture, or above, then there is your answer. But otherwise, this would be an argument from silence.

The Bible doesn't say it's not Rome, right?

But then . . . would the Roman Empire be written of in Scripture with both masculine and neuter genders within the same context? That would be odd, to say the least, wouldn't it?

Much love!
mark

 

[marks]

Paul says they were broken off. If they are Israel, to whom are they grafted back into upon believing?

They are grafted back into the tree . . . Abraham . . . the father of many nations . . . whose children ye are.

 

[ScottA]

No, better for you to not claim imparting knowledge without backing it would proof.

You mean like a gift without a gift receipt? How foolish to expect such!

No, if I offer no proof, it changes nothing.

Nonetheless, I have reported the truth.

 

[Copperhead]

He was not a liar, his words were spirit, just as he said. And "the spiritualizing gig"...is God's gig. Some/many reject him. Apparently, you are one who does.

You bet! I reject the Hellenization of scripture interpretation that was developed by Origen and solidified by Augustine and supported by John Calvin. Allegorical interpretation is not God's gig. It is man made. And it led from Origen thru Augustine thru Luther thru Calvin straight to the gas chambers of Auchschwitz.

And it waters down the pure, simple Gospel of Yeshua.

When one uses a allegorical "spiritualizing" approach to scripture, one can pull off a lot of nonsense. This is an extreme example, but quite apropos.... grabbing a scripture that says "Judas hanged himself" and grabbing another that says "Go and do Likewise" and trying to make a doctrine of that.

The only principled hermeneutic approach is that of ... "when the plain sense of scripture makes sense, then seek no other sense lest one end up with nonsense".

But so many want to do the gnostic thing of trying to find the deeper meaning. Origen really botched that up with stuff like the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

The traveler was really Adam
Jerusalem became Paradise
Jericho became the world
The Robbers became hostile influences
Priest and Levite became the Law and the Prophets
The Good Samaritan became Jesus
The Inn became the Church
The 2 Denari became the knowledge of the Father and the Son
The Inn Keeper became the Angels that watch over the Church.

 

[Enoch111]

Yes, Historicism always agrees with Scripture.

Historicism perverts Scripture by making reality into metaphors:

"Historicism looks at the whole of Bible prophecy as a sweeping overview of church history, from Pentecost to the end times. This approach involves interpreting symbols or figures in the Bible as metaphors for actual events, nations, or persons of history. Historicism was especially popular during the Reformation, when it was used to suggest that the Catholic Church was part of the end-times apostasy, with the pope as the Antichrist."
What is historicism? What is the historicist interpretation of the book of Revelation?

The pope was NEVER the Antichrist, since the Antichrist has NEVER appeared on earth up to this point. Like I pointed out already, if the Antichrist had already appeared, then we would now be in the New Heavens and the New Earth.

 

[brakelite]

The pope was NEVER the Antichrist, since the Antichrist has NEVER appeared on earth up to this point. Like I pointed out already, if the Antichrist had already appeared, then we would now be in the New Heavens and the New Earth.

Of all the criteria belonging to the Antichrist that can be used to determine her/his identity, the only two not fulfilled yet are

• the Biblical criteria pertaining to the final legislative enactment enforcing its mark of ecclesiastical authority by its political image and counterpart, the false prophet, and...
  
• the man-made criteria that states he hasn't appeared yet.

All the Biblical criteria, bar the one above, have been met. In fact, such is their fulfilment to be found in the Papal power that it would be impossible for some of them to be fulfilled again, by any entity, single person or corporate body.

 

[Copperhead]

Well there is a middle ground, so to speak. Some do equate the letters to the 7 churches as both present time when the book was written and also a picture of church history. They would also say that while it does seem to correspond to church history, they were real churches getting their report cards from Yeshua. And that in reality, there are characteristics of all the churches within each church today and they determine that from "hear what the Spirit says to the churches" - plural. I can see how they could arrive at these conclusions.

But many of those same folks who break down the 7 churches that way also tend to hold a futurist mindset regarding the rest of Revelation. They key in on the "after these things" of Revelation 4:1.

I waste absolutely no time whatsoever worrying about who the AC is. I really am not concerned if it is a Pope or Vladimir Putin or Emmanuel Macron. Paul wrote that there would be a departure before the man of sin is actually revealed. And that comment was in the context of our being gathered to Yeshua. So I see no need to waste any time worrying about the AC.

 

[Dave L]

They are grafted back into the tree . . . Abraham . . . the father of many nations . . . whose children ye are.

Abraham = Israel. They used the terms Hebrews and Israel interchangeably in the OT.

 

[Dave L]

Proof of the MK and the new law under the covenant to the houses of Israel and Judah.
Zechariah 14:16
16 Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles.

The day of worship ([Zechariah] vv. 16–19)

The primary occupation of heaven will be the worship of the God of heaven. In these verses, the prophet foresees those who are ‘left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem’ (v. 16) joining in the worship. This indicates the conversion of those who once were the enemies of God and his people. Conversion makes God’s enemies his friends and sinners his subjects.
What are we to make of the reference to these converts keeping the Feast of Tabernacles (v. 16)? This feast was designed to commemorate the wandering of the people of Israel for forty years in the wilderness, during which time they were compelled to live in temporary booths or shelters. During the eight days of the feast, the Jews would recall those years by constructing temporary shelters for themselves and staying in them during the feast.
The Feast of Tabernacles was also a harvest festival. James Ayre writes of it, ‘It reminds them that God brought them out of a desert into a glorious land flowing with milk and honey; a land of broad rivers and streams.’2
The mention of this particular feast in relation to eternal glory should therefore be taken to mean that the saints who worship in heaven will be mindful of their wandering before they were saved and of the grace that made them part of God’s great spiritual harvest.
We cannot leave this section without noting that those who are not present to participate in the worship of heaven are under the judgement of God and plagued by him, just like Egypt of old (Exod. 7:14–10:29; 12:29–30).


Ellsworth, R. (2010). Opening Up Zechariah (pp. 135–136). Leominster: Day One Publications.

 

[Dave L]

No one said the promises applied to unbelieving Jews. But there are promises to believing OT Jews that weren't given to the Church (made up of believing Jews and Gentiles (Eph 2:15)), hence the distinction between the Church and Israel. There were land promises to the believing OT Jews that weren't given to the Church and promises to the Church not given to Israel,but in both cases those promises are yea and amen.

The congregation of the Lord in the OT is the Church of the Lord. Congregation = Church.

 

[Copperhead]

Abraham = Israel. They used the terms Hebrews and Israel interchangeably in the OT.

Actually, Jacob = Israel. It was not Abraham. Jacob's name was changed to Israel by YHVH. Genesis 32:28.