Two particular problems with dispensationalism...

[bbyrd009]

In this prophecy, we now know that 1948 is the sign post marker for the start of this prophecy

ah, you know, huh. How do you help someone to change their minds, if they already know?
i suggest that it is impossible; it cannot be done. These are the Blind, Leading the Blind, wadr, at least imo

 

[Jay Ross]

I’m afraid you have a wrong understanding of the Parable of the Fig Tree. Indeed the Fig Tree represents National Israel. Yes, it was prophesied they were to be scattered in the four corners of the world, and one day would return as a nation once again. Contrary to your suggestions, however, the prophecy already came to fruition when Israel became a viable nation once again amongst the nations of the world in 1948.

1948 is the sign given in verse 33, “when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.” The word “it” is referring to verses 30, 31 and 32.

God’s promises to National Israel have all been completed! Their divorce was finalized when the curtain of the temple was rent in two that signaled their separation, as Jesus hung on the cross.

There is no budding of Israel in 30 years as you’ve suggested.

If I may borrow the words of Jesus as He spoke to Nicodemus, “Art thou a Jew and knowest not these things?” (paraphrased).

To God Be The Glory

I see that you did not use your laughing matter to understand what was writ, because if you had, you would have known that I was using 1948 as to when the fig tree began to bud new leaves and that the duration between when the fig tree buds new leaves and the beginning of the Summer Season when the harvest begins tells us when the Millennium Age begins.

Oh and another thing, God does not want Israel to return to the land until the end of the Millennium Age otherwise it will be difficult for them to be His Nation of Priests to the nations of the world.

 

[Jay Ross]

you'd think the legions of the confused that have taken that same path would be a guide, yet we witness no lack of ppl assuring us that we need to worry about tomorrow, huh.

A people with no understanding will worry and will look for signs to confirm what they do not already know.

 

[Jay Ross]

ah, you know, huh. How do you help someone to change their minds, if they already know?
i suggest that it is impossible; it cannot be done. These are the Blind, Leading the Blind, wadr, at least imo

Agreed

 

[bbyrd009]

A people with no understanding will worry and will look for signs to confirm what they do not already know.

well, it's this last part, this "already know" thing, that Scripture tells us we are to change our minds on, imo. Of course this will not make what you are saying here any less true either, except for each individual i guess

 

[charity]

' ... For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
When Christ, Who is our life, shall appear,
then shall ye also appear with Him in glory. ... '

We are so closely identified, in the sight of God, with Christ Jesus our risen Lord, that when He died, we died, in Him; when He was buried, we too were buried with Him, when He was quickened into life, so were we. When, He rose from the dead, we also rose, and when He ascended into heaven so did we, (in Him). We are seated with Him at God's right hand in heavenly places, awaiting His appearing in glory, when we too will appear with Him there.

Praise God!

That is all the 'eschatology' I am able to retain, and I rejoice in it.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Naomi25]

YES WE SHOULD START TRADING VERSES AND FIRST OFF CONFIRM IF THE TRANSLATIONS OF THE RESPECTIVE VERSES INTO ENGLISH IS CORRECT.

If we can start trading the respective verses that we believe backs our respective theories, then the ensuring conversation will help both of us to refine what we believe.

Shalom

Oh golly. Are you one of those people who only accept the KJV as "reliable"?
Also...why on earth do you feel, at this point, trading verses will do any good? I've given you plenty of verses talking about both "Old" and "New" covenants. But, more than that...more than just the words, and what those particular words might mean in Hebrew or Greek, it's the context of the verses we find them in. If you refuse to read the plain meaning of "out with the old, in with the new" (my paraphrase, obviously), then no amount of verse trading will get us anywhere. Only frustration and argumentation will follow, and that is not edifying to anybody.

 

[Jay Ross]

Oh golly. Are you one of those people who only accept the KJV as "reliable"?

<snip>

No. I find with all of the English Translations, particularly where the tradition of previous translations has greater sway than the actual original language word's meaning and context, that they give a wrong understanding to people who only study/read from the English versions and do not dig deeper into the original texts and the probable intended meanings that the writers intended. I also can perceive that the translation committees have slanted the translation to fit their perceived theological understanding, like New Covenant Theology, Replacement Theology, in the way that they have translated the text.

But if you will not give your scriptural evidence, then so be it, the interlopers will not benefit from your defence of your position.

See you later crocodile.

 

[bbyrd009]

We are so closely identified, in the sight of God, with Christ Jesus our risen Lord, that when He died, we died, in Him

assuming one "dies daily," yes, but this seems to be the first thing that gets written out imo

 

[charity]

assuming one "dies daily," yes, but this seems to be the first thing that gets written out imo

Hi @bbyrd009

This is something that is reckoned by God to have been done, and it is not something that we can do anyway even if we wanted to.
We are to reckon on the efficacy of God's reckoning of faith, based on the finished work of Christ.

'Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more;
death hath no more dominion over Him.
For in that He died, He died unto sin once: but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God.
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin,
but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin:
but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead,
and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
For sin shall not have dominion over you:
for ye are not under the law, but under grace.'
(Rom 6:9-14)

Thank you.
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[bbyrd009]

This is something that is reckoned by God to have been done

ah, came down as a command, at least to me

and it is not something that we can do anyway even if we wanted to.

rolleyes
then i guess commanding us to do so would be pointless then

i die daily, and God helps me in this the same way a parent helps an older sibling to not be torturing a younger one lol, iow not always all sweetness and light. God is best perceived as my "adversary" in this, and getting all gushy about how i am not called or commanded to do anything bc God is going to do it all is just a misguided way to justify all of one's works.

"Don't blame me, God did it."
ya, ok

YOU reap what YOU sow

 

[Naomi25]

No. I find with all of the English Translations, particularly where the tradition of previous translations has greater sway than the actual original language word's meaning and context, that they give a wrong understanding to people who only study/read from the English versions and do not dig deeper into the original texts and the probable intended meanings that the writers intended. I also can perceive that the translation committees have slanted the translation to fit their perceived theological understanding, like New Covenant Theology, Replacement Theology, in the way that they have translated the text.

But if you will not give your scriptural evidence, then so be it, the interlopers will not benefit from your defence of your position.

See you later crocodile.

I'm fairly sure that any "interlopers", should they choose, can read post #145, where I do, in fact, present scriptures. That you ignore those, but then go on to accuse me of presenting none, sets the tone for our conversation. If you are going to stoop to a theological form of "I know you are, I said you are..." then I think most people can assume, correctly, that sense and "proof" will not ever come into a conversation, only preconceived notions that must be hammered and bulldozered over everything else.

 

[Davy]

I'm fairly sure that any "interlopers", should they choose, can read post #145, where I do, in fact, present scriptures. That you ignore those, but then go on to accuse me of presenting none, sets the tone for our conversation. If you are going to stoop to a theological form of "I know you are, I said you are..." then I think most people can assume, correctly, that sense and "proof" will not ever come into a conversation, only preconceived notions that must be hammered and bulldozered over everything else.

I thought your explanation in #145 was to the point and clear.

 

[Jay Ross]

I'm fairly sure that any "interlopers", should they choose, can read post #145, where I do, in fact, present scriptures. That you ignore those, but then go on to accuse me of presenting none, sets the tone for our conversation. If you are going to stoop to a theological form of "I know you are, I said you are..." then I think most people can assume, correctly, that sense and "proof" will not ever come into a conversation, only preconceived notions that must be hammered and bulldozered over everything else.

Yes and I disputed your interpretation presented in post #145 and presented the parable of the new wine in the refurbished like new wine skins to show that a very different understanding was reguired. If my memory serves me well in my older years, You disagreed with my explanation and preferred the words used in the traditional translations as providing a better understanding even though it is wrong IMHO. I then asked you to provide more scriptural references that backed up your understanding, to which, again, if my memory does not fail me, non has been forth coming.

Because of the wall head butting, I finished my last post with the "See you later crocodile," which is a common means of parting company.

So see you later on the flat earth continent some where should our paths cross.

 

[Naomi25]

Yes and I disputed your interpretation presented in post #145 and presented the parable of the new wine in the refurbished like new wine skins to show that a very different understanding was reguired. If my memory serves me well in my older years, You disagreed with my explanation and preferred the words used in the traditional translations as providing a better understanding even though it is wrong IMHO. I then asked you to provide more scriptural references that backed up your understanding, to which, again, if my memory does not fail me, non has been forth coming.

Because of the wall head butting, I finished my last post with the "See you later crocodile," which is a common means of parting company.

So see you later on the flat earth continent some where should our paths cross.

Well, to be fair, you did accuse me of not giving my evidence. Which I had. You just didn't like it. Or address it.

But if you will not give your scriptural evidence, then so be it, the interlopers will not benefit from your defence of your position.

And as my disagreeing with your interpretation of the new wine skins parable...you kind of rested your whole argument there on the fact that "new" didn't actually mean new. "New", according to you, was "made new, but left to sit long enough to get oldish, so it had to be 'refurbished'. And boy, no wonder you claim that it has to be read with a 'very different understanding'.
So...the reason I "prefer" the traditional interpretation of that verse, is because it makes sense and it stands a chance of actually saying what's there....as opposed to jumping on what's not there and going off on a tangent.

Read the parable of the neo wine being put into kainous wine skins. Even neo wine skins if they have not been used straight away will harden such that if you put neon wine into them they will burst. They too need to be kainous/refurbished, made like new again before the neon wine can be safely put into the younger wine skins.

As for you "see you later crocodile" sign off...sorry, didn't catch that. Isn't it: "See you later alligator....in a while crocodile?" You know...so it rhymes? (I'm terrible at that sort of thing tho, so I could have it wrong.)

 

[Jay Ross]

<snip>

As for you "see you later crocodile" sign off...sorry, didn't catch that. Isn't it: "See you later alligator....in a while crocodile?" You know...so it rhymes? (I'm terrible at that sort of thing tho, so I could have it wrong.)

Yes I know that is the song, but I was trying to be very ozzie seeing as I live near crocodile country and wanted to sound authentic.

Seems like you are showing your age as well.

 

[Naomi25]

Yes I know that is the song, but I was trying to be very ozzie seeing as I live near crocodile country and wanted to sound authentic.

Seems like you are showing your age as well.

 

[CoreIssue]

 

[Enoch111]

They all just assume that the "coming wrath" is the Tribulation period and not the righteous judgement due to them for their sin. And I find that unsatisfactory in the least. Can anyone here give a good, biblical reason for this assumption?

The first thing to understand is that there are two separate periods of 3 1/2 years each. The first is the Tribulation and the second is the Great Tribulation (the Greek literally says "the tribulation, the great").

There are sound biblical reasons for concluding that the Tribulation and the Great Tribulation are both manifestations of the wrath of God against the unbelieving, the ungodly, the wicked, and the enemies of Christ.

1. The Tribulation is primarily for unbelieving Jews, hence called "the time of Jacob's trouble". And it is also a UNIQUE PERIOD in history, such as has never been, nor ever will be. Only one-third of all the Jews worldwide will be saved out of it.

THE TIME OF JACOB'S (ISRAEL'S) TROUBLE
And these are the words that the LORD spake concerning Israel and concerning Judah. For thus saith the LORD; We have heard a voice of trembling, of fear, and not of peace. Ask ye now, and see whether a man doth travail with child? wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness?
Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it. (Jer 30:4-7)

And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. (Dan 12:1)

And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God. (Zech 13:8,9)

Right...question two: They also seem to, as far as I can tell, assume that the phrase "the Day of the Lord" means the Tribulation period. How do they arrive at that?

2. Not "Tribulation" but "the Great Tribulation". And it is quite simple. All you have to do is compare the descriptions of the Day of the LORD in the OT and match them up with the 6th and 7th seal judgments in Revelation.

 

[Nancy]

Hi guys! I'm hoping I might be able to pick the brains of some dispensationalist. I've been doing some reading/watching on end times. I am, I suppose, what you might call an Amil...although I'm not sure I fit neatly into that camp. But the fact that world events are lining up as they are has bought me to consider dispensationalism again.

The problem being, that while current events might look like what dispensationalists point to, I just cannot make peace with their biblical exegesis on various passages...or even the basic hermeneutics in some larger issues. And that's a real sticking point to me. I don't want to be so stubborn that I miss what's right in front of me, like the Pharisees did of Christ's first coming. But I don't want to push away proper biblical interpretation just because my newspaper headlines are becoming exciting.

Anyway, I thought I might start a thread and ask the two big questions that I'm "sticking" on. It might lead to more, but these are the ones that I can't quite find good answers to....

The first one: Teachers for the Rapture always say that God will take us out of the world before pouring out his wrath on it. They cite passages such as: 1 Thess 1:10, 1 Thess 5:9, Luke 21:36. All about escaping the coming wrath. My question is this: I can find nowhere that states that this 'wrath' must be judgement poured out in the Tribulation. In fact, in context, it seems much more likely that what is being talked about is both wrath and judgement of ultimate finality. In some passages it talks of them being under wrath but us having ultimate salvation, for example:
For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ - 1 Thessalonians 5:9

And: Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. - John 3:36
Then if we look at some others in context:
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction - Romans 9:22.......and we know that "destruction" means eternal punishment, not the Tribulation trials because....They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. - 2 Thessalonians 1:9–10

Again:
But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. - Romans 2:5

Anyway, there are more, but you catch my drift. And no matter how I look, I can't seem to find an author of pastor who addresses this. They all just assume that the "coming wrath" is the Tribulation period and not the righteous judgement due to them for their sin. And I find that unsatisfactory in the least. Can anyone here give a good, biblical reason for this assumption?

Right...question two: They also seem to, as far as I can tell, assume that the phrase "the Day of the Lord" means the Tribulation period. How do they arrive at that? The OT seems a little more...liberal (and I hate using that word, by the way!) in it's usage of the phrase. And by that I mean that it seems to employ the phrase when speaking of a time of judgement coming upon the people of God. But even with that more ambiguous usage, I'm still left wondering how you get a very definite period out of it, to the exclusion of his second return. Especially considering that the NT seems to use it much more strictly. The NT writers seem intent on using it in a way that "day" actually means "day", and that day will actually see Christ's return, not just his judgement fall. So....I'm left wondering how dispensational scholars decide to throw all the verses together and come out with "the Day of the Lord" is the Tribulation period, and not his second advent. To me, it doesn't make sense, and it doesn't echo scripture soundly.

Any takers? Hoping for a good, solid, sensible, biblical conversation....thanks.

The dispensations and "A, post, and pre" Mills confuse me. Every-time I think I "got it", someone like yourself comes along (lol) and forces me to look further. This very thread is something I have decided to do my next private bible study on and, I wish I had at least one other person that would do it with me. There is a ton of stuff to address in your post so...I will say this: I DON'T KNOW.
And, you are right, I have not heard hide nor hair of these doctrines in the Church's. They are all in assumption that after the GT, Jesus will physically reign from Jerusalem for 1000 literal years, of which at the end, Satan will be loosed from His prison to tempt mankind again. Oh yes, and most seem to go for the pre-trib rapture as well. Which to me, seems to have Jesus coming back 3 times!
Allowances are made for symbols, figures of speech, and types, of course. I do know that Dispensation does allow for certain types of things like symbols and such. But then, there are those who say that even these have literal interps!
You have a loaded thread here Naomi, I hope it takes off well!
In Him,
nancy