Hermeneutics vs. "Herd-meneutics"

[tzcho2]

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

Please, Dave, read all the scripture that I posted here as Dave L, it says ISRAEL is not forgotten by GOD, and Israel will be saved. I highlighted parts to emphasize but read the scripture entirely. It is clear, the branches were temporarily cut off but the HOLY ROOT remains. If you cannot understand what Paul is saying here about Israel , then I'm at a loss for words.


Romans 11:1 "1 I say then, Did God cast off his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not cast off his people which he foreknew. Or know ye not what the scripture saith of Elijah? how he pleadeth with God against Israel: 3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, they have digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have left for myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal. 5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace."

ROMANS11:11- I say then, Did they stumble that they might fall? God forbid: but by their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, to provoke them to jealousy. 12Now if their fall, is the riches of the world, and their loss the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? 13But I speak to you that are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I glorify my ministry; 14if by any means I may provoke to jealousy them that are my flesh, and may save some of them. 15 For if the casting away of them is the reconciling of the world, what'shall the receiving of them be , but life from the dead? 16And if the firstfruit is holy, so is the lump: and if the root is holy, so are the branches."

25For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in;

26 AND SO ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED:
Even As IT Is Written,
There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer;
He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27And THIS IS MY COVENANT UNTO THEM,
When I shall take away their sins.

ROMANS 11: 28 As touching the gospel, they are enemies for your sake: BUT AS TOUCHING THE ELECTION, THEY ARE BELOVED FOR THE FATHER'S SAKE.

 

[Dave L]

The resurrection and the rapture happened together.

There are two resurrection. The first for the Saints the second for the damned. 1000 years apart.

Read Revelation. States two 1000 years apart.

But of course you don't read literally you can believe whatever you want.

Notice the two resurrections happen at the same time, in the same hour.

“Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” (John 5:28–29) (KJV 1900)

The first resurrection is the New Birth followed by the resurrection of the body on the last day. You need to consider this before assuming too much in Revelation 20.

 

[Dave L]

Please, Dave, read all the scripture that I posted here as Dave L, it says ISRAEL is not forgotten by GOD, and Israel will be saved. I highlighted parts to emphasize but read the scripture entirely. It is clear, the branches were temporarily cut off but the HOLY ROOT remains. If you cannot understand what Paul is saying here about Israel , then I'm at a loss for words.


Romans 11:1 "1 I say then, Did God cast off his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not cast off his people which he foreknew. Or know ye not what the scripture saith of Elijah? how he pleadeth with God against Israel: 3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, they have digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have left for myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal. 5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace."

ROMANS11:11- I say then, Did they stumble that they might fall? God forbid: but by their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, to provoke them to jealousy. 12Now if their fall, is the riches of the world, and their loss the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? 13But I speak to you that are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I glorify my ministry; 14if by any means I may provoke to jealousy them that are my flesh, and may save some of them. 15 For if the casting away of them is the reconciling of the world, what'shall the receiving of them be , but life from the dead? 16And if the firstfruit is holy, so is the lump: and if the root is holy, so are the branches."

25For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in;

26 AND SO ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED:
Even As IT Is Written,
There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer;
He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27And THIS IS MY COVENANT UNTO THEM,
When I shall take away their sins.

ROMANS 11: 28 As touching the gospel, they are enemies for your sake: BUT AS TOUCHING THE ELECTION, THEY ARE BELOVED FOR THE FATHER'S SAKE.

If the broken off are Israel, to whom are they grafted back into upon believing?

 

[tzcho2]

Dave also accuses the Jesuits of inventing the rapture when it existed long before they did.

So many are not taught about the rapture , I used to be in a denomination that didn't believe in it either. Then I got saved! lol! and then read about the rapture of the believers! God is good! Still , 3/4 of my relatives have no clue.

 

[tzcho2]

If the broken off are Israel, to whom are they grafted back into upon believing?

So you didn't bother reading the scripture I typed out for you! Thanks!

 

[CoreIssue]

Notice the two resurrections happen at the same time, in the same hour.

“Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” (John 5:28–29) (KJV 1900)

The first resurrection is the New Birth followed by the resurrection of the body on the last day. You need to consider this before assuming too much in Revelation 20.

But hour in the Bible can be 1000 years.

The resurrection will be on the last day of the church age, not the earth.

What am I assuming in error? The first resurrection is the pretrib rapture, the resurrection of the two witnesses at mid trib, and those Saints resurrected during the MK. It is not a one 24 hour day, but the day of the Lord, which is over 1000 years long.

Revelation 20
5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

 

[prism]

Historicism absolutely exposed and destroyed Jesuit Preterism and Jesuit Futurism in the mid-16th century, and that's why those two theories totally disappeared from view for over 300 years...it's not coincidence that about the time Preterism and Futurism began to infiltrate Protestantism 150 years ago, it was about the time that the papacy had ceased their nefarious practices like rounding up the saints next to a cliff and tossing their children over the side one by one while demanding the parents give up their protest. The longer a volcano lies dormant, the threat of it is eventually forgotten.

Satan figured out the only way to destroy Historicism is to put a happy face on the papacy, so that those who once eyed her every move with utmost suspicion now stand in awe and admiration of everything she does. Well play, prince of darkness, well played.

The issue should not be how old a view is, or 'who destroyed what view'?.. but is it true, is it scriptural?

 

[prism]

The best way to approach these things is not from the position of trying to disprove the opposition, but bolstering one's own position. Studying these things out to reduce any reasonable doubt for the position they hold. I find that if folks just focus on attacking the opposition, they risk inflating their own ego and pride starts to enter in. And pride is the source of all sin.

Like I said, when it comes to an approach to prophecy I am quite lenient and allow lot's of slack. I am short fused though when it comes to Preterism and Replacement Theology.

 

[ScottA]

I've been studying the three main interpretations of Bible prophecy for a while - Jesuit Preterism, Jesuit Futurism, and Protestant Historicism - and as a Historicist in the succession of the Protestant Reformers, it never fails to amaze me how often the reasons offered by those who reject Historicism do not so much explain why the claims of Historicism are wrong as they do explain why their interpretation is right. The Bible and history are the standard used to determine whether a spiritual proposition is to be taken up or let alone - personal affinity for cherished ideas is neither a standard or substitute.

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?

• If it was an agent of holiness, then why all the secrecy and mystery?
• Why would the most intrepid preacher of the Gospel the world has ever known - Paul - suddenly develop history's worst case of "cat-got-tongue"?
• Why deny such encouragement to the persecuted, fledgling early church by failing to plainly state that the power keeping such horrible darkness in check was the power of God?

The Early Church Fathers knew why. Everyone of them who had something to say about the restrainer said "with remarkable unanimity" that Paul told the early church the restrainer was the Roman Empire. The fathers lived in a time closely removed from Paul and therefore knew exactly what the early church had been teaching on the subject. None of them make even the slightest suggestion the restrainer is some agent of holiness. Therefore, it makes perfect sense why Paul would not risk Christian lives by writing out that the Empire is soon to be "taken out of the way".

However, the "herd mentality" of Christian eschatology today demands that Futurists stubbornly insist the restrainer is some agent of holiness - because accepting that the Man of Sin arose right after the fall of Pagan Rome means that the Man of Sin arose a long time ago (Papal Rome) which revelation totally destroys the Futurist end time timetable. But accepting this means breaking free from herd mentality and thinking outside the box. That seems to much to ask nowadays. 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.

It is good that you notice that an error exists, but to agree with the early church fathers is also an error.

Paul was vague, for the simple reason that he himself gave: "For now we see in a mirror, dimly." And the early church fathers, even more dimly.

 

[CoreIssue]

The issue should not be how old a view is, or 'who destroyed what view'?.. but is it true, is it scriptural?

Add to that futurism existed long before the Jesuits.

And the problem with historicism being said to expose anything is that many of the things claimed by his historicist as fulfill have not been fulfilled.

The Tribulation, second coming, resurrection, AC, 70th week of Daniel, destruction of the earth, new Jerusalem and on and on are still future.

 

[CoreIssue]

It is good that you notice that an error exists, but to agree with the early church fathers is also an error.

Paul was vague, for the simple reason that he himself gave: "For now we see in a mirror, dimly." And the early church fathers, even more dimly.

Seeing dimly in a mirror? You do realize that makes sense.

But I agree the early church saw even less clearly

1 Corinthians 13
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.
11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.
12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

 

[ScottA]

The Tribulation, second coming, resurrection, AC, 70th week of Daniel, destruction of the earth, new Jerusalem and on and on are still future.

The "still future" stance, is like a man waiting for a bus in the middle of the route: Some are already on the bus, and like him, some are not.

 

[CoreIssue]

The "still future" stance, is like a man waiting for a bus in the middle of the route: Some are already on the bus, and like him, some are not.

More like watching the film. Some have seen the beginning, some seen to middle but everyone is waiting to see the end. But the complete story is already on film.

 

[Phoneman777]

I disagree with you. The restrainer is not the Roman Empire.

If you re-read my OP, you'll see that your post is precisely what I was talking about.

 

[Phoneman777]

The issue should not be how old a view is, or 'who destroyed what view'?.. but is it true, is it scriptural?

The truth always prevails in the fight against error...that is why Protestant Historicism so deeply beat down Jesuit "left behind" Futurism and Jesuit "the last disciple" Preterism that it took over 300 years for these two false ideas to finally resurface...and only about 150 years for non-catholics to become so ignorant of church history and Bible prophecy that they actually do a better job of promoting these Jesuit ideas than does the Jesuit Order.

 

[Phoneman777]

It is good that you notice that an error exists, but to agree with the early church fathers is also an error.

Yes, the fathers said things that we know aren't Biblical. However, their ideas about the restrainer are not interpretation - they with "remarkable unanimity" declare what was taught regarding what Paul told the early church about the identity of the restrainer. Tradition tells us that the early church actually PRAYED for the continuation of the Roman Empire. Why? Because they understood when Pagan Rome fell, the Man of Sin would arise and really do damage to the church.

Paul was vague, for the simple reason that he himself gave: "For now we see in a mirror, dimly." And the early church fathers, even more dimly.

Paul plainly says the Thessalonians had illumination about the identity of the restrainer verse 6 because he says he'd already enlightened them in verse 5.
No darkness surrounding the identity of it - and no mystery why Paul zipped his lip about it in his letter: he knew letters talking about the fall of empires can easily fall into the hands of imperial authorities, which would spell disaster those connected with such letters.

 

[Enoch111]

...the objections offered by those who reject Historicism do not so much explain why the claims of Historicism are wrong...

Here's why Historicism is DEAD WRONG.

If the Restrainer was the Roman Empire (which means calling the debauched Roman Empire "holy") and if the Papacy was the Man of Sin (which is really stretching the meaning of "man", and the meaning of 42 months) then according to the sequence of events in the Bible, we would already be past the Millennium and living in the New Heavens and the New Earth "wherein dwelleth righteousness"!

Since common sense and ordinary observation of the daily events worldwide tell us that nothing could be further from the truth, that is CONCLUSIVE PROOF that Historicism is as absurd as Preterism or any such fanciful interpretation of Scripture.

So what you have to prove is that everything listed below has already been fulfilled:

Rev 13 -- the Antichrist takes power for 3 1/2 years (Man of Sin)
Rev 14-18 -- All God's final judgments have been poured out
Rev 19 -- the Marriage of the Lamb has taken placed
Rev 19 -- Christ has descended to earth visibly with all His saints an angels
Rev 19 -- the battle of Armageddon has been finished
Rev 19 -- the Antichrist and the False Prophet are in the Lake of Fire
Rev 20 -- the Millennium has already been accomplished
Rev 20 -- Satan has been cast into the Lake of Fire
Rev 20 -- the Great White Throne Judgment has been finished
Rev 21 -- the New Heavens and New Earth have been established.

Of course only someone totally delusional would say that these things have already happened. So you must go back to square one my friend. And that's the painful truth.

However take comfort in the fact that Thomas Edison went back to square one 1,000 times before he got it right!

 

[prism]

The truth always prevails in the fight against error...that is why Protestant Historicism so deeply beat down Jesuit "left behind" Futurism and Jesuit "the last disciple" Preterism that it took over 300 years for these two false ideas to finally resurface...and only about 150 years for non-catholics to become so ignorant of church history and Bible prophecy that they actually do a better job of promoting these Jesuit ideas than does the Jesuit Order.

Again, it is not a matter if it's Jesuit/ Franciscan, Luther/ Calvin, Aquinas/ Augustine, the matter boils down to 'does it accord with Scripture'?

 

[Copperhead]

It shows that you do not understand the scriptures concerning the Jews, Israel, the kingdom and the Church. This alone takes out your entire end time hypothesis.

Well, that really isn't helping anyone here. I can say the same about your position. This is like a couple of kids at the playground... "my daddy can beat up your daddy".

Instead, build your case. I offered up a little something to chew on, at least you can do the same. I stated quite clearly that the Abrahamic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant are still in play. It is incumbent upon you to disprove that assertion.

Well, when I got up this morning, the sun rose. The moon was out tonight. I am probably not to far off when I say the waves are still roaring on the seashore. Well, it would seem the Abrahamic Covenant is still in play.

And the Davidic Covenant is that the Messiah would rule one day in the authority of David in Jerusalem. Now, that hasn't happened yet, but I am confident that the Lord will keep His promise.

So, unless the Lord is just playing word games and trying to pull the wool over our eyes, it would seem just about everything Hebrew is still in play. All except the Mosaic / Sinai Covenant.

And last I checked, Hosea 5:15 is still in play and Yeshua affirmed that in Matthew 23:37-39 which was a discourse on Hosea 5:15 in conjunction with Psalms 118. So if anyone wants the Messiah to return, they better hope there are some physical Hebrews still around to do that. They have a unique calling and purpose. The church has its own. Folks need to quit being greedy and trying steal other peoples purposes.

 

[Copperhead]

Like I said, when it comes to an approach to prophecy I am quite lenient and allow lot's of slack. I am short fused though when it comes to Preterism and Replacement Theology.

Yeah, those two I have some real problems with.

On the replacement theology thing, I am not sure why anyone would want to take upon themselves all the baggage of Israel unless they were born Hebrew. The believer has a far better covenant and promises than Israel ever had. I am a businessman, and trying to equate with Israel is bad business. Let them have their own gig. Paul said the promises are still theirs. But the believer has greater promises. Yeah.... I'll take the believer promises. That seems like the better deal.

And those folks that seem to want to do the replacement theology gig, they always like the blessings that were Israel's but they never seem to accept the curses. Kinda like those New Agers that talk about how they were a famous person in a previous life. None of them say they shoveled manure in a past life. They were always a great warrior or prince or something. Not someone who was the lowest of society.