Understanding Parable and Allegory in God's Word

[VictoryinJesus]

Two different subjects. Paul saying he travails for the brethren in Gal.4 is not the warning he gave in 2 Cor.11 against falling away from Jesus. If you don't know that, then I'm surprised that you comprehend much when you read.




Same thing above, those are all different subjects than 2 Cor.11 Paul wanting to present us "as a chaste virgin" to our "Husband" Jesus Christ. It appears you don't understand the idea of metaphor and analogy.

Ok then. You wrote of the another Jesus. Simply was pointing out the spirit of the antichrist exalts himself above all that is Christ same as the queen does in glorifying herself. How they differ from the chaste virgin in her submission to Christ. You mentioned the deception of the travail and I pointed out those of Christ travail in birth. You’ve shown nothing to this warning to not be deceived by this travail and what you say I’m clearly not seeing. Maybe you are right and there is something there...couldn’t say since I have no idea what you are saying. You could pray He reveals what needs to be seen. Thanks.

 

[Davy]

Ok then. You wrote of the another Jesus. Simply was pointing out the spirit of the antichrist exalts himself above all that is Christ same as the queen does in glorifying herself. How they differ from the chaste virgin in her submission to Christ. You mentioned the deception of the travail and I pointed out those of Christ travail in birth. You’ve shown nothing to this warning to not be deceived by this travail and what you say I’m clearly not seeing. Maybe you are right and there is something there...couldn’t say since I have no idea what you are saying. You could pray He reveals what needs to be seen. Thanks.

Christ's servants definitely do NOT... travail for the end.

Have you not read this?

1 Thess 5:2-5
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say, "Peace and safety"; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

Do you not see who it is there that Paul said will be "as travail upon a woman with child"? That's about the deceived at the end, those who will be saying peace and safety has finally come on earth, which is one of the signs of the end when Antichrist shows up proclaiming to be God (Dan.8:25). That "sudden destruction" is about the day of God's cup of wrath poured out on the 7th Vial, the last day of this world. That destruction is not meant for the faithful of Christ's Church. Nor is that 'travail' for Christ's faithful at the end of this world.

4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
KJV

 

[Naomi25]

It would appear many brethren in Christ have great trouble understanding the idea of allegory in God's Word.

Nope! Not me...I'm good thanks!

 

[Davy]

Nope! Not me...I'm good thanks!

Then that means you plan to wait... for our Lord Jesus to appear at the end of the coming great tribulation. That's good.

 

[Naomi25]

Then that means you plan to wait... for our Lord Jesus to appear at the end of the coming great tribulation. That's good.

I most certainly plan to wait for my Lords appearing. And it probably will be after a period of persecution and even worldly trevail. I don't expect it to be seven years after a Rapture, however, just a single event. 'Cause my bible tells me so...

 

[Davy]

I most certainly plan to wait for my Lords appearing. And it probably will be after a period of persecution and even worldly trevail. I don't expect it to be seven years after a Rapture, however, just a single event. 'Cause my bible tells me so...

I don't know what you mean by, "seven years after a Rapture". God's Word doesn't teach a rapture prior to a seven years period. It teaches the saints that are still alive on the day of Jesus' 2nd coming being "caught up" to Him and the asleep saints He brings with Him on His descending to this earth, to Jerusalem.

 

[Naomi25]

I don't know what you mean by, "seven years after a Rapture". God's Word doesn't teach a rapture prior to a seven years period. It teaches the saints that are still alive on the day of Jesus' 2nd coming being "caught up" to Him and the asleep saints He brings with Him on His descending to this earth, to Jerusalem.

Just clarifying my position as there are numerous here who ascribe to a pre-trib Rapture. I wasn't sure if you were one or not, but felt it probably didn't matter either way because in stating my position, it's my position, not yours, and therefore I couldn't get it wrong or insult anyone!
Just confuse them apparently! Sorry.

 

[Davy]

Just clarifying my position as there are numerous here who ascribe to a pre-trib Rapture. I wasn't sure if you were one or not, but felt it probably didn't matter either way because in stating my position, it's my position, not yours, and therefore I couldn't get it wrong or insult anyone!
Just confuse them apparently! Sorry.

Right, I don't hold to that pre-trib rapture theory. I was guessing you did by what you said.

 

[Naomi25]

Right, I don't hold to that pre-trib rapture theory. I was guessing you did by what you said.

Nope! Opposite end of the spectrum....Amil. (Don't hate me)

 

[Davy]

Nope! Opposite end of the spectrum....Amil. (Don't hate me)

I don't hold to that theory either. I keep to what the 1st century Church fathers believed about the time of Christ's return, that of a post-tribulational coming prior to the millennium. That is the only timing for His return that I can find written in God's Word also.

 

[Naomi25]

I don't hold to that theory either. I keep to what the 1st century Church fathers believed about the time of Christ's return, that of a post-tribulational coming prior to the millennium. That is the only timing for His return that I can find written in God's Word also.

Mmmm, well, clearly I disagree, and a good perusal of the books can tell us that most groups of thought can dredge up early Church Fathers. I prefer to stick to scripture, as you say. And sure, post-trib makes sense, clearly. But where I cannot budge, although surprisingly I have often tried, is to bring that Millennial Kingdom to a point where there's gotta be a time smooshed in between Christ's coming and the next age's commencing. Can't see it, sorry!

 

[Davy]

Mmmm, well, clearly I disagree, and a good perusal of the books can tell us that most groups of thought can dredge up early Church Fathers. I prefer to stick to scripture, as you say. And sure, post-trib makes sense, clearly. But where I cannot budge, although surprisingly I have often tried, is to bring that Millennial Kingdom to a point where there's gotta be a time smooshed in between Christ's coming and the next age's commencing. Can't see it, sorry!

Well, the 1st century Church fathers believed in a pre-millennial return of our Lord Jesus. The amill theory became a tradition starting in the 2nd century, especially by those like Clement and Origen, both of the Alexandria school influenced by pagan Greek Neo-Platonist traditions. Others that rejected Apostle John's Epistles also went Amill, which led to treating a lot of Scripture about the kingdom as being symbolic only.

 

[farouk]

Mmmm, well, clearly I disagree, and a good perusal of the books can tell us that most groups of thought can dredge up early Church Fathers. I prefer to stick to scripture, as you say. And sure, post-trib makes sense, clearly. But where I cannot budge, although surprisingly I have often tried, is to bring that Millennial Kingdom to a point where there's gotta be a time smooshed in between Christ's coming and the next age's commencing. Can't see it, sorry!

Some of the Patristic writings are good; others questionable...

Like you say, Scripture is the yardstick.

 

[Naomi25]

Well, the 1st century Church fathers believed in a pre-millennial return of our Lord Jesus. The amill theory became a tradition starting in the 2nd century, especially by those like Clement and Origen, both of the Alexandria school influenced by pagan Greek Neo-Platonist traditions. Others that rejected Apostle John's Epistles also went Amill, which led to treating a lot of Scripture about the kingdom as being symbolic only.

Okay...well...alright, let's touch on this a little more then.
I have a problem when people attempt to base the validity of their understand of a particular doctrine on whether or not the 'Early Church Fathers' believed it or not. And I do so for a couple of reasons. First; we know from the writings of Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165), in particular his Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 80, that while Justin himself defended the position of Historic Premillennialism, he added that "many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise".
So, we know that from very early on there were other schools of thought around. "Many", in fact. And that Justin viewed them not as heretics, but brothers.
The second problem I have is that people assume that just because an "ECF" believed in it, it had to be right. Except, we know from proof that not everyone who picks up a pen or opens scripture is correct in their interpretations. We know that even back then it happened. Look at Origen. He was on the money in some places, but so far out in others. Put succinctly; people are people, and only the biblical writers were inspired.
So, sure, we ought to read them, learn from them, respect them. But assuming that they had the correct idea is fallacious thinking. We know from history that the RCC started somewhere. How many years before the Reformation took steps to bring us back to biblical correctness?

So, was Pre-mill the dominant view? Maybe. Maybe it was. But it wasn't the only view. And, in my honest belief, not the most biblically honest one. First and foremost we need to let scripture form our beliefs on the subject, not history. And in all honesty, there is not one reference in the NT that refers to a time period after Christ's return that is 'inbetween' this age and the next. Even Rev 20, when read in its correct context and in conjuction with the other verses in scripture that clearly speak to it, cannot mean that. And that is the single argument Pre-mils have. The timeframe presented in the NT does not allow for it, and trying to stretch Rev 20 to read it into all the other texts is a pure and simple violation of them.

 

[farouk]

So, was Pre-mill the dominant view? Maybe.

Of course a literal, pre-millennial view does not bother me in the slightest.

 

[Davy]

Okay...well...alright, let's touch on this a little more then.
I have a problem when people attempt to base the validity of their understand of a particular doctrine on whether or not the 'Early Church Fathers' believed it or not. And I do so for a couple of reasons. First; we know from the writings of Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165), in particular his Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 80, that while Justin himself defended the position of Historic Premillennialism, he added that "many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise".
So, we know that from very early on there were other schools of thought around. "Many", in fact. And that Justin viewed them not as heretics, but brothers.
The second problem I have is that people assume that just because an "ECF" believed in it, it had to be right. Except, we know from proof that not everyone who picks up a pen or opens scripture is correct in their interpretations. We know that even back then it happened. Look at Origen. He was on the money in some places, but so far out in others. Put succinctly; people are people, and only the biblical writers were inspired.
So, sure, we ought to read them, learn from them, respect them. But assuming that they had the correct idea is fallacious thinking. We know from history that the RCC started somewhere. How many years before the Reformation took steps to bring us back to biblical correctness?

So, was Pre-mill the dominant view? Maybe. Maybe it was. But it wasn't the only view. And, in my honest belief, not the most biblically honest one. First and foremost we need to let scripture form our beliefs on the subject, not history. And in all honesty, there is not one reference in the NT that refers to a time period after Christ's return that is 'inbetween' this age and the next. Even Rev 20, when read in its correct context and in conjuction with the other verses in scripture that clearly speak to it, cannot mean that. And that is the single argument Pre-mils have. The timeframe presented in the NT does not allow for it, and trying to stretch Rev 20 to read it into all the other texts is a pure and simple violation of them.

Funny, most of my experience with those on Amill, they refuse to admit that the Premill view was the main view from the start, and then they try (as you have here) to somehow justify the Amill view being a popular held view at the same time in the 1st century. That of course would be showing confusion between the early disciples on what they believed, and could possibly even put The New Testament writings in jeopardy.

The Pre-trib Rapture theory doctors try to do the same thing. They are ever looking for a way to prove that the pre-trib rapture idea was an early idea of the disciples, when actually there is no such idea written anywhere in God's Holy Writ.

Same thing for Amillennialism, there is no such idea written anywhere in God's Holy Writ.

 

[Naomi25]

Of course a literal, pre-millennial view does not bother me in the slightest.

It doesn't necessarily bother me either. I don't see it in scripture, but should I be wrong, I don't think I'll mind very much. 1000 years of near paradise on earth with Christ ruling? Kinda hard to feel bummed by it if it does happen. I just think that's not what the bible is referring to.

 

[Naomi25]

Funny, most of my experience with those on Amill, they refuse to admit that the Premill view was the main view from the start, and then they try (as you have here) to somehow justify the Amill view being a popular held view at the same time in the 1st century. That of course would be showing confusion between the early disciples on what they believed, and could possibly even put The New Testament writings in jeopardy.

I'm not sure I actually made a case for the Amil view being "a popular view" that was held at the same time. I just pointed out that Justin himself said that there were other views present at the same time and he considered them biblical enough to not call them heretics.
The fact is, even if many DID hold to a system of 'Amillennialism', that term would not be used to categorize the view until much later; so it's a little hard to assess accurately.
So, no, I am not attempting to "justify"...I believe my whole point that trying to use the ECF to "justify" a view is problematic, which is why I avoid it. It may be interesting and may give us insight into what was happening back then, but the ONLY thing that should inform us when forming doctrines, is scripture itself. And sure, now we're talking about the disciples; those who wrote scripture and cannot be called into question. Everyone else can be, and that is, by far, part of the problem. You might have an ECF who is stella in his biblical views and doctrines 80% of the time, but, being not perfect, he might get the other 20% wrong. As I pointed out before, there is plenty of evidence for just that, and for those who were wrong 80% of the time but got 20% right!
You see my point; history is interesting, but only scripture has the right to form our views on which "system" is most accurate.

The Pre-trib Rapture theory doctors try to do the same thing. They are ever looking for a way to prove that the pre-trib rapture idea was an early idea of the disciples, when actually there is no such idea written anywhere in God's Holy Writ.

Do they? Really? Because I just thought that they claim it to be so, and so it must be! By and large my biggest problem with Dispensationalists...or, one of, anyway, is that they lack the capacity for serious investigation. They take on 'truth' because they heard some 'reputable' teacher spouting it, so it must be true! They don't dig into the Word to see if these things really add up; if the interpretations are faithful. And I think their somewhat astounding insistence that Dispensational thinking did not come to light in the 'Darby era' denies what seems factually true.
They might dig up some vague reference to something sounding somewhat like they hold to, thinking, as many do, that the closer to Christ someone held a belief the more it HAS to be true. Forgetting, of course, that Paul constantly wrote against heresies in his day. Scriptural error is not a modern phenomenon.

Same thing for Amillennialism, there is no such idea written anywhere in God's Holy Writ

Oh, now! How wrong can you be, my friend! I would gladly present my evidence before you if you'd like.

 

[Davy]

I'm not sure I actually made a case for the Amil view being "a popular view" that was held at the same time. I just pointed out that Justin himself said that there were other views present at the same time and he considered them biblical enough to not call them heretics.

Justin Martyr wasn't born until around 100 A.D. and didn't become a Christian until later in his life, thus the view you quoted him from was written around 150 A.D., into the 2nd century A.D. So you cannot really try to use that as evidence for what 1st century Christians believed.

The fact is, even if many DID hold to a system of 'Amillennialism', that term would not be used to categorize the view until much later; so it's a little hard to assess accurately.

All that statement does is try to raise doubt against the earliest Christian belief in Christ's 2nd coming prior to the Millennium of Rev.20. Knowing when the Rev.20 "thousand years" is to occur is easy to assess accurately; all one need do is stick with what is actually written in God's Word about Christ's future literal thousand years reign on earth with His gathered elect as written.

So, no, I am not attempting to "justify"...I believe my whole point that trying to use the ECF to "justify" a view is problematic, which is why I avoid it. It may be interesting and may give us insight into what was happening back then, but the ONLY thing that should inform us when forming doctrines, is scripture itself. And sure, now we're talking about the disciples; those who wrote scripture and cannot be called into question. Everyone else can be, and that is, by far, part of the problem. You might have an ECF who is stella in his biblical views and doctrines 80% of the time, but, being not perfect, he might get the other 20% wrong. As I pointed out before, there is plenty of evidence for just that, and for those who were wrong 80% of the time but got 20% right!
You see my point; history is interesting, but only scripture has the right to form our views on which "system" is most accurate.

Again, I see nothing in those statements that changes the Scripture evidence for Christ's future Millennial reign beginning at His 2nd coming as shown in Rev.20 and in the prophets like Zechariah, which that reign is still future to us.

Do they? Really? Because I just thought that they claim it to be so, and so it must be! By and large my biggest problem with Dispensationalists...or, one of, anyway, is that they lack the capacity for serious investigation. They take on 'truth' because they heard some 'reputable' teacher spouting it, so it must be true! They don't dig into the Word to see if these things really add up; if the interpretations are faithful. And I think their somewhat astounding insistence that Dispensational thinking did not come to light in the 'Darby era' denies what seems factually true.
They might dig up some vague reference to something sounding somewhat like they hold to, thinking, as many do, that the closer to Christ someone held a belief the more it HAS to be true. Forgetting, of course, that Paul constantly wrote against heresies in his day. Scriptural error is not a modern phenomenon.

Oh yeah... today's pre-trib scholars are ever trying to establish earlier evidence for the pre-trib rapture theory (earlier than 1830s). They like to cite Pseudo-Ephraim, et al, when his writings included references to Christ's return after the tribulation. If they can establish any hint of doubt as to a post-trib coming that appears to be good enough in their view to reject a post-trib view.

Oh, now! How wrong can you be, my friend! I would gladly present my evidence before you if you'd like.

I am not wrong. There's no Biblical evidence for such an idea. You can try... to present Scripture evidence, and I'd be glad to show how it is not written. And remember, if there is only one single Bible verse in contradiction when presenting a Scripture as evidence, that automatically disqualifies the view.

 

[Naomi25]

Justin Martyr wasn't born until around 100 A.D. and didn't become a Christian until later in his life, thus the view you quoted him from was written around 150 A.D., into the 2nd century A.D. So you cannot really try to use that as evidence for what 1st century Christians believed.

Wait...so let me get this straight: You can know from 2000 years later what the "first century" Church accurately believed, but Justin, who, by the way, IS considered an ECF, only about 70 years or so after them, is not a reliable source?
I wonder if you just proved my point once and for all that biblical doctrines shouldn't be made on what we 'believe' the early church believed, considering that even you, who declared the ECF to be the most reliable sources for these, cannot, in fact, be trusted. You've just eaten the back side out of your own metric.
Thanks.

All that statement does is try to raise doubt against the earliest Christian belief in Christ's 2nd coming prior to the Millennium of Rev.20. Knowing when the Rev.20 "thousand years" is to occur is easy to assess accurately; all one need do is stick with what is actually written in God's Word about Christ's future literal thousand years reign on earth with His gathered elect as written.

So, in point of fact, you don't actually care what the EC believed. Unless you find particular sources that back Pre-millennialism, you just dismiss as "unreliable" any other source material from that time that even suggests there were, even then, differences in what the Early Church believed.
That's not sound historical discovery, that's biased reading. It's revisionist, quite frankly.
And I agree...have I not been saying all along that to come to a decent bible theology on end times and the Millennium it is always best to stick to scripture, and NOT delve into the ECF?

Again, I see nothing in those statements that changes the Scripture evidence for Christ's future Millennial reign beginning at His 2nd coming as shown in Rev.20 and in the prophets like Zechariah, which that reign is still future to us.

Ug. It wasn't meant to change the scriptural evidence. It was meant to point TO the scriptures as evidence and away from the ECF, who we know are fallible.
Again, you seem to be arguing in a circle. First we HAD to consider the ECF, who you insisted were reliable. Then you've managed to assert that they are not and scold me for not looking only to scripture. Dude...are you even reading what I'm saying?? How many times do I have to say it??

Oh yeah... today's pre-trib scholars are ever trying to establish earlier evidence for the pre-trib rapture theory (earlier than 1830s). They like to cite Pseudo-Ephraim, et al, when his writings included references to Christ's return after the tribulation. If they can establish any hint of doubt as to a post-trib coming that appears to be good enough in their view to reject a post-trib view.

Hmmm, good luck to them. Although, we're at a climax in history where people insist on things that are not true or are not factually proven. So...maybe they will pull their 'rabbit out of a hat'. Anyone can twist the meaning of something to make it say what it does not. All they really need to do is ignore context.