It's not that I don't recognize it, but that I am of the opinion one is better served to use sound hermeneutic principles for interpreting the prophetic Scriptures. That method requires using New Testament defintions (olive trees being Jews and Christians from Romans11, and churches for candlesticks from Rev1 ) for the New Testament terms olive trees and candlesticks. In other words we don't go to the Old testament for definitions of New Testament terms when we have New Testament definitions that fit perfectly. After all Christ did warn us to be careful when it comes to tradition. If you prefer following traditional doctrines that have been built in the absence of sound hermeneutic principles thats your choice. As you are led friend as you are led.
The Two Witnesses
- Thread starter martinlawrencescott
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The practice of "sound hermeneutic principles" involves NOT... omitting any relevant Scripture on a matter. It does not mean being in favor of one Scripture example over another, but just the opposite.
Sounds like you're supporting the false idea that everything written in the Old Testament Books is history and past, when it is not.
2 Pet 3:1-2
1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
(KJV)
Notice Apostle Peter included study of the OT prophets for those in Christ Jesus.
If the New Testament definitions did not fit perfectly then it would be proper to seek answers in the Old Testament, but sound hermeneutic principles require one to use New Testament definitions (olive trees are Jews being Christians per Romans11 and Candlesticks being churches per Rev1) for the New Testament terms (olive trees and candlesticks) when they are available. I've shown you the rule of Scriptural adjacency more then once. if you choose to ignore it in favor of one of the many traditional teachings built in the absence of sound hermeneutic principles so be it, your choice, as you are led. As for me I am convinced that proper exegesis comes from the use of sound hermeneutic principles and will continue to base my interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures on sound hermeneutic principles. No point arguing ad nauseam if neither of us is willing to change. As you are led friend as you are led.
I'm not ignoring any part of God's Word, but someone has obviously bewitched you into doing just that. And you're going to be in great error as long as you keep doing that.
I didn't say you are ignoring God's word but you are ignoring the use of sound hermeneutic pronciples in favor of traditionally taught doctrines. Considering that there are literally thousands of endtimes views and most built in the absence of sound hermeneutic principles it is in our best interest to search diligently for the truth.If the inspired word of God tells us candlesticks are churches in Rev1 then candlesticks will still be churches in Rev 11. If God's inspired word tells us olive trees are Jews and Christiansin Romans11 then they will still be Jews and Christians in Rev11. Can you show us where the definition for candlesticks (given by God's inspired word) changed between Rev1 and Rev11? Can you show us where the definition of olive trees has changed between Romans 11 and Rev11? I have shown where the definition of candlesticks and olive trees has changed Between Zech4 and Rev11. Like I said friend as you are led, as you are led.
You have so much to learn about God's Word, I wouldn't know where to even begin with trying to show someone like you.
The olive tree symbol Apostle Paul was using in Romans 11 originates within Old Testament Scripture! Likewise with our Lord's usage of it in Rev.11. And likewise with the candlesticks symbol in Revelation. So go try and BS someone else.
Candlesticks and olive trees are used figuratively in Zec 4, but the figures within that chapter were defined for us as things that existed during Zechariah's time (the Jewish leader Zerubbabel being one of them). So on the basis of the definitions in Zec 4, could Zerubbabel and/or "the two anointed ones" be the Two Witnesses of Rev 11? Not very likely since he died about 2500 years ago. We see no end-time reference to a personage like Zerubbabel in the New Testament, and furthermore Revelation does not call the two witnesses of the Christian Era "anointed ones." On the other hand the rule of Scriptural adjacency (a hermeneutically sound principle) does give us definitions from the New testament (candlesticks used in the same book Rev and olive trees from the same testament) that do fit perfectly. As you are led, friend, as you are led.
As I see the banter back and forth, even sometimes over-heated, I can do little but applaud the dedication to providing and/or seeking better understanding.
Similar threads
