Search results

Absolutely there I go again. You point your finger in condemnation at "people like me" who take parts of Revelation symbolically, seemingly ignoring the fact that we also take things literally. Also ignoring the fact that we do so in very like manner to you. The big question, then, becomes the...

Well, you go on believing that....clearly reason and obvious biblical fact will do nothing to sway your fast-held belief. But, know that 99% of theologians and...well...plain folk who read the bible see it differently. Maybe you could take a poll.

You mean I take literal words like "Lamb"...and change it's meaning to Christ? Kinda like you? And I take figurative words with known literal meanings like "Lamb that had been slain" to mean Jesus, who has died for us? Just like you? Wow. Truly...your reasoning is profound.

If you would notice in my reply, I do not attempt to "prove my claim" by hot air alone. It's quite simple. You are attempting to state Peter was applying a larger chunk of Joel 2 at Pentecost than he actually quoted and therefore...in reality...did apply to Pentecost. That's not hot air or...

Sure I did, that's why I replied about them. If you didn't like my reply, sorry, but I most certainly read and replied.

:D I'm sorry, but no...that's not really what's happening here. If Dispensationalism is convicting me of anything, it's a growing concern of it's errors. The more I look at it and talk to those who believe in it, the more startling it's inconsistencies are with what I see scripture clearly teaching.

And how is that ANY different to what we do, pointing out that the image of the Lamb is actually Christ, and so on and so forth? THIS IS SYMBOLIC REASONING! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I don't think that's really up to you to say, is it? Peter quoted Joel to prove why the people gathered were seeing what they were seeing...in other words...why the Apostles were not drunk. But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.” But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up...

I'm sorry, but...what? "Just because it contains symbols, doesn't mean its symbolic". Here's some very "plain sense". If you come across a symbol...it's a symbol. And of course symbols stand for an actual truth. This is part of the whole "spiritualizer" strawman argument that goes on. I've...

Wait....hang on. You see the seeming fact that Christ returns multiple times, as "different aspects of the same event"? In other words.....the same event being repeated....described slightly differently? HOW is that any different to recapitulation? Problem number one...you yourself have just...

I guess you don't realise that when we take something figurative, as it's supposed to be taken figurative, we consider ourselves as following scripture literally.

So...according to you, when Paul said: But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not...

Thanks! Will check 'em out!

Peter was speaking to the Church. When it says that "three thousand souls" were added, and baptized...that means that they became the Church. So...yes, Jews. But Paul tells us that IN Christ, there is neither Jew or Gentile. So all this nonsense about it still being about Jew or 'not-Jew' is...

I find it interesting, because when we search the scriptures, what DO we see about how we should wait for Christ? Is it with EAGERNESS or is it with LOOKING? You say that those who do not look, will not be taken. You imply that eagerness IS to be looking. But...is that what scripture says? Does...

Interesting. Do you have any reputable new sources you can share? My son finds CME's fascinating...although, yes, like you I hope for a small event. It would be good to be able to show him an article or two on it.

:rolleyes: Seriously? So...it's "consistent and sound" for a "literalist" to switch between symbol, metaphor and figure of speech at will....but when an Idealist does it, we're horrible people who play around with scripture and make it say whatever we want? You do realise, don't you, how you've...

So...Peter was only speaking to the Jews, not the Church. And when he quoted Joel there was a clear line of demarkation between the 'dream' line and 'vision' line? Except, nothing in scripture will support either thought. for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many...

So that means it doesn't exist? The thread I started was some time ago...its in the Eschatology thread, page 6. If you've missed the times I've referred to myself as Amil, that's hardly my fault. You can try askin' around I suppose.

If it was an 'example' and only a small 'event', it was still for the Church, not Israel. The Holy Spirit fell that day...on the Church. Jews became believers, and part of the Church. They went out, full of the Spirit, and converted other Jews and Gentiles, who became part of the Church. And we...