Eschatology: Survey says . . . !!!

[puritan lad]

For example, Ezekiel talks about a third Jewish Temple

Where?

The pre-trib rapture is the "plain" reading of the text.

What text? I cannot find a “pre-trib” rapture in the entire Bible, literal or allegorical. (At best, all I can find is a post-resurrection rapture).

I do NOT read the OT promises in light of NT promises.

And that is precisely why the Judaists missed their Messiah, and thus lost the kingdom. They were blind leaders of the blind, and I have no desire to follow them.

[Jac3510]

Where?

Ezekiel 40-47, which you spiritualize. (A nice way of calling God a liar)

What text? I cannot find a “pre-trib” rapture in the entire Bible, literal or allegorical. (At best, all I can find is a post-resurrection rapture).

Taken plainly, the rapture and Second Coming are not the same events. The debate is between pre and post-trib rapture. 1 Cor 15:51 tells us the rapture was a mystery. The Second Coming, along with the resurrections associated with it, were not mysteries. Plainly, then, they are different events.

And that is precisely why the Judaists missed their Messiah, and thus lost the kingdom. They were blind leaders of the blind, and I have no desire to follow them.

No, they missed their Messiah because they rejected His testimony in the OT. They sought salvation in their works, so when Jesus came proclaiming salvation through faith, they rejected Him then as well.

Their eschatology was right on. Their soteriology was off, much the same as it is with the majority of Christians today.

SO - I'll ask YOU the same question I asked ttoews:

Since the OT prophecies were not to be taken literally, but could not be understood until Jesus and the apostles came along hundreds of years later to explain them, then how were the Jews to which they were written supposed to understand their meaning?

[puritan lad]

Ezekiel 40-47, which you spiritualize.

Jac,

Do you take this literally?

“It shall be the prince's duty to furnish the burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the new moons, and the Sabbaths, all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel: he shall provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings, to make atonement on behalf of the house of Israel.” (Ezekiel 45:17).

I am aware of the dispensational argument that this is only a “memorial sacrifice” (with Jesus literally sitting on the Jerusalem throne, go figure). But that is not what the text says. It clearly says that these animal sacrifices are “make atonement on behalf of the house of Israel”. Please explain this in light of Hebrews 9:12.

What about the return to (lookout Men!!!) “circumcision “in heart and flesh” (Ezekiel 44:7-9) and the use of ancient Jewish currency (Ezekiel 45:10-16)? Remember, this is supposed to take place in your future temple.

We have already discussed the ancient weaponry in Exekiel 38-39, which you have yet to explain. They create a huge problem with your hermeneutic, where “Wires are wires. Screws are screws”, but ““shields and bucklers, bow and arrows, clubs and spears”(Ezekiel 39:9-10) can be Scud Missiles, Nuclear Warheads, etc. Soldiers are on horseback (Ezekiel 38:4) become tank fighters, and “livestock and goods” (Ezekiel 38:12-13), become oil. Now I realize that you haven't made these claims, but either you agree with them as a futurist, or you really believe in a future invasion of Israel using the weapons listed above. Russia must really need that cattle eh?

Needless to say, the Dispensationalist futurist interpretation of Ezekiel becomes quite creative when it needs to be (and require a lot of guesswork). Ezekiel's war (and temple) are past history. See The Past Fulfillment of Ezekiel's War.

Taken plainly, the rapture and Second Coming are not the same events. The debate is between pre and post-trib rapture. 1 Cor 15:51 tells us the rapture was a mystery. The Second Coming, along with the resurrections associated with it, were not mysteries. Plainly, then, they are different events.

Let's assume that you are correct here. I still don't see a “pre-trib” rapture. Neither 1 Thess. 4 nor 1 Cor. 15 mention a tribulation period. If the purpose of the rapture was to escape the tribulation, you would think that Paul would have told us this.

No, they missed their Messiah because they rejected His testimony in the OT. They sought salvation in their works, so when Jesus came proclaiming salvation through faith, they rejected Him then as well.

Their eschatology was right on. Their soteriology was off, much the same as it is with the majority of Christians today.

In any case, the inspired NT writers plainly tell us that OT prophecies concerning “Israel” and the “Abrahamic Covenant” were fulfilled in the church (Galatians 3 for one of many examples). That's good enough for me.

[puritan lad]

Since the OT prophecies were not to be taken literally, but could not be understood until Jesus and the apostles came along hundreds of years later to explain them, then how were the Jews to which they were written supposed to understand their meaning?

“For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it." (Luke 10:24).

Contrary to much of dispensational teaching, this was not about the “church age”, but the actual fulfilment of Old Testament Prophecy in the First Advent of Christ, not the Second. It must be noted that even the Apostles, having learned this, still had a flawed view of Christ's kingdom (Acts 1:6). This is what the Holy Spirit came for, to teach them all things (John 14:26). This is why Jesus, after telling His Apostles that John the Baptist fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies concerning Elijah coming, told them “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” (Matthew 11:15).

Of course, one could accuse Jesus of “allegorizing” that prophecy. I'll let others take that approach.

[ttoews]

Since you believe the OT passages are not to be taken literally, and since it took Jesus and the apostles to come along hundreds of years later to give their proper meaning, then how were the Jews to whom they were written supposed to know what God actually had in mind?

Good question. One could ask the same wrt the Trinity and wrt the cross and wrt the Messiah having only a kingdom not of this world. (I suspect you and I could add quite a few doctrines to this list) What Jew would have known that he was, in fact, worshipping a triune God before NT times? What Jew would have known that all salvation was through the cross and by the name of Jesus before NT times? What OT Jew would have known that the Messiah would first come as a suffering Messiah w/o a kingdom of this world? Wrt to these things (which I would categorize as more significant than the millennium) how were the Jews to know what God actually had in mind?
Further, wrt eschatological matters (and assuming your eschatology is correct) how would the OT Jews know that the kingdom is a 1000 year deal?....how would they know that the sacrifices they make in the millennium are not under the old flawed covenant, but under a new covenant that includes gentiles and not just Judah and Israel? Again, one could go on.
Anyway you cut it, in response to your question as to how the Jews were supposed to know.....the answer seems to be that their knowledge wasn't to extend that far until the further revelation of the NT.

[ttoews]

Taken plainly, the rapture and Second Coming are not the same events. The debate is between pre and post-trib rapture. 1 Cor 15:51 tells us the rapture was a mystery. The Second Coming, along with the resurrections associated with it, were not mysteries. Plainly, then, they are different events.

No, taken plainly Jesus promises to come again.....and not to come again (pre-trib), and again (post-trib) and again (post-mill). It is a second coming and not a second, third and fourth coming.
Secondly, 1 Cor 15:51 speaks of a mystery which is that not all will sleep, but all will be changed, etc. This happens at the last trumpet. In a plain reading (aka a straightforward reading) there would be a last trumpet that is actually the last trumpet and not a last trumpet followed by still more and more trumpets as required by your eschatology (see Mt 24:31, possibly 1 Thes 4:16, and Rev 8-11 for the more trumpets)
You do realize Jac, that as we get into this in more depth, it will become very clear that dispensationalism isn't straightforward at all.....and that the "plain reading" is really a matter of perspective.

[Jac3510]

Do you take this literally?

Yes. Why do you bother asking a question that you know the answer to and then saying, "Now don't give me the answer I know you are going to give me because I don't agree."

Let's assume that you are correct here. I still don't see a “pre-trib” rapture. Neither 1 Thess. 4 nor 1 Cor. 15 mention a tribulation period. If the purpose of the rapture was to escape the tribulation, you would think that Paul would have told us this.

Then assume I'm correct. What is the point of discussing if the pre-trib or post-trib position is more obvious if you reject a trib position at all?

In any case, the inspired NT writers plainly tell us that OT prophecies concerning “Israel” and the “Abrahamic Covenant” were fulfilled in the church (Galatians 3 for one of many examples). That's good enough for me.

Hah. Silly lad. Galatians 3 is soteriological, not eschatological, PL. Try again.

Contrary to much of dispensational teaching, this was not about the “church age”, but the actual fulfilment of Old Testament Prophecy in the First Advent of Christ, not the Second. It must be noted that even the Apostles, having learned this, still had a flawed view of Christ's kingdom (Acts 1:6). This is what the Holy Spirit came for, to teach them all things (John 14:26). This is why Jesus, after telling His Apostles that John the Baptist fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies concerning Elijah coming, told them “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” (Matthew 11:15).

I'm sorry, but I couldn't help but giggle at this. Do you realize that you quoted Luke 10:24, and then proceeded to explain the passage by commenting on Acts, John, and Matthew???

[Jac3510]

Good question. One could ask the same wrt the Trinity and wrt the cross and wrt the Messiah having only a kingdom not of this world. (I suspect you and I could add quite a few doctrines to this list) What Jew would have known that he was, in fact, worshipping a triune God before NT times? What Jew would have known that all salvation was through the cross and by the name of Jesus before NT times? What OT Jew would have known that the Messiah would first come as a suffering Messiah w/o a kingdom of this world? Wrt to these things (which I would categorize as more significant than the millennium) how were the Jews to know what God actually had in mind?
Further, wrt eschatological matters (and assuming your eschatology is correct) how would the OT Jews know that the kingdom is a 1000 year deal?....how would they know that the sacrifices they make in the millennium are not under the old flawed covenant, but under a new covenant that includes gentiles and not just Judah and Israel? Again, one could go on.
Anyway you cut it, in response to your question as to how the Jews were supposed to know.....the answer seems to be that their knowledge wasn't to extend that far until the further revelation of the NT.

You totally missed my point, but I'll answer your questions just the same. The Trinity is a NT revelation. However, there is no OT text that cannot be understood apart from the Trinity. In other words, if you remove the Trinity, there is NO OT TEXT that is unintelligible. The suffering Messiah IS clearly stated in the OT (Is 53). Further, that the Messiah's kingdom is "not of this world" is plainly stated in the OT as well (Dan 7:13-14).

Continuing with your list, the fact that the Messiah would be rejected, be killed, raise from the dead, and return again is all OT prophecy, unless you wish to call Jesus a liar (Luke 24:27, etc.). Further, the 1000 years is a NT revelation. However, that does not mean that the OT prophecies CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD.

Let's use Gen 3:15 as an example. This is the first giving of the Gospel. God promised mankind a Redeemer. Now, did Adam and Eve know that Redeemer would be born of the line of David, be the King of Israel, live a sinless life, die for their sins, be resurrected, and ascend to heaven? Of course not. But Gen 3:15 can be taken to be literally true just the same. You don't HAVE to know those things to understand Gen 3:15.

That is what you aren't getting. Let's use Gen 15:18-20 as an example. God promised Abraham that He would give a specific portion of land to his descendents. He even gave the boundaries. Now, the Jews have NEVER possessed that land. So you have to allegorize the text and say it refers to the future inheritance of heaven by the Church, or whatever you want to do with it. We could use any one of a million examples for this. The prophecies concerning the Third Jewish Temple in Ezekiel 40-47 would fit just as well.

Abraham took that promise literally. Let's say you are right. God knew the Jews would never get that land. He knew it would be fulfilled spiritually, but He didn't let Abraham in on that little secret. He let Abraham think that his decendents would actually get that land. Therefore, Abraham was INCAPABLE OF PROPERLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT GOD WAS PROMISING HIM, as were ALL the Jews after him. Therefore, that portion of Scripture was unintelligile until . . . well . . . 2000 years later!!!

So, your hermeneutic forces you to believe that Scripture was, or is, unintelligible until future revelation takes place. I find that position absurd, plainly wrong, and downright offensive to the God we serve. God is not the author of confusion.

So, let me ask you AGAIN:

Since you believe the OT passages are not to be taken literally, and since it took Jesus and the apostles to come along hundreds of years later to give their proper meaning, then how were the Jews to whom they were written supposed to know what God actually had in mind?

Were they capable of understanding what God really meant when He spoke through the prophets? Yes or no, ttoews?

No, taken plainly Jesus promises to come again.....and not to come again (pre-trib), and again (post-trib) and again (post-mill). It is a second coming and not a second, third and fourth coming.

I certainly hope you know that no one believes in both a pre and post trib rapture . . . if you don't, why are you even bothering with this discussion?

Secondly, 1 Cor 15:51 speaks of a mystery which is that not all will sleep, but all will be changed, etc.

Try reading what I already said, dude. I'll bold the relevant part for you:

• Taken plainly, the rapture and Second Coming are not the same events. The debate is between pre and post-trib rapture. 1 Cor 15:51 tells us the rapture was a mystery. The Second Coming, along with the resurrections associated with it, were not mysteries. Plainly, then, they are different events.

Let's do this mathematically so we can make things concrete. We are going to let A refer to the Rapture, and B refer to the second coming. We are going to let X refer to "a mystery."

If A=X, and A=B, then B=X.
If A=X, and B<>X, then A<>B.

See that? The Second Coming was NOT a mystery. The resurrection was NOT a myster. The rapture WAS a mystery. Therefore, the two events cannot be the same. Try again.

This happens at the last trumpet. In a plain reading (aka a straightforward reading) there would be a last trumpet that is actually the last trumpet and not a last trumpet followed by still more and more trumpets as required by your eschatology (see Mt 24:31, possibly 1 Thes 4:16, and Rev 8-11 for the more trumpets)

I am assuming that you know that the Revelation was written well after the epistles to the Corinthians. It is impossible, then, for Paul to be referring to an event THAT HAD NOT YET BEEN REVEALED. There is absolutely NO REASON to equate the Last Trump here with the final trumpet in the Revelation. That's just retarded. That goes back to what I said above about you believing that Scripture is unintelligible. Poor Corinthians . . . they didn't know that they should have just put that portion of Paul's letter aside and said to themselves, "Well, John will right in about thirty years from now to explain to us what the Last Trump is. So for now, we should ignore it. It can't mean anything to us."

So, try again. It is painfully clear that these trumps are not the same event.

You do realize Jac, that as we get into this in more depth, it will become very clear that dispensationalism isn't straightforward at all.....and that the "plain reading" is really a matter of perspective.

Of course it is a matter of perspective. Have I ever said otherwise? I read the text like a first century Jew, written by a first century Jew. You read it like a twenty-first century Christian written by a twenty-first century Christian.

Besides this, I have continually said that DISPENSATIONALISM is complicated, but it's INDIVIDUAL PARTS are simple. Even further, I have talked primarily about OT prophecy. We take those as literal promises to literal people, and we read the NT in light of those promises. Your camp allegorizes the texts, rendering them untelligible to their original audiences. Your hermeneutic rejects the plain meaning of Scripture.

For the last time, no, dispensationalism is not simple. It is highly complex. I've not said otherwise. I have repeatedly said that the interpretation of OT prophecy is simple. The interpretation of NT doctrine is relatively simple as well. In both cases, it is a matter of perspective. I choose a literalists perspective. Sorry you don't. But don't bother telling me that you can be a literalist and not be a dispensationalist. Even your own apologists disagree with you on that point. You are far better off arguing that a literal hermeneutic is wrong.

[puritan lad]

Yes. Why do you bother asking a question that you know the answer to and then saying, "Now don't give me the answer I know you are going to give me because I don't agree."

I just want an explanation. You claim to hold to the "plain meaning" of the text, yet you want to reduce the "atoning" sacrifice to a mere "memorial" sacrifice. How do you take this literally? Will Jesus actually sacrifice a lamb to make atonement for the House of Israel? That is what it says, literally. You cannot hold to the idea of a “memorial sacrifice” in the passage and then say that you take this literally. It's one or the other. Remember Jac, the “plain reading” says that these animal sacrifices will ““make atonement on behalf of the house of Israel”. Apparently, Jesus didn't finish His work afterall.

Then assume I'm correct. What is the point of discussing if the pre-trib or post-trib position is more obvious if you reject a trib position at all?

Because you made the claim earlier that “The pre-trib rapture is the "plain" reading of the text.” I'm challenging that statement. There is no text that teaches a pre-trib rapture, plain or otherwise. That is something you must import into the text. As I pointed out, neither 1 Thess. 4 not 1 Cor. 15 mention a tribulation period. Would you like to revisit your previous statement? If you continue to hold to it, then please show me the text that you are referring to.

Hah. Silly lad. Galatians 3 is soteriological, not eschatological, PL. Try again..

Come on Jac. You're trying to play word games here. Paul tells us that the Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled in Abraham true seed, Christ. That is what the “plain reading” says. There is no reason to believe in any other type of fulfilment, unless Paul is wrong.

Besides, if I took the Judaist position on Old Testament prophecy, I wouldn't be a Christian. I would be a Judaist. Thank God for the New Testament.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't help but giggle at this. Do you realize that you quoted Luke 10:24, and then proceeded to explain the passage by commenting on Acts, John, and Matthew???

And…???

In other words, you don't like my answers. I'm disappointed Jac. I expected at least some substance in your reply, however flawed it may have been. Instead, you've simply dodged the questions. Let's try again, and maybe you can answer my "silly" questions this time.

Will there be future animal sacrifices for the atonement of Israel?
Will there be a return to circumcision in the flesh?
Will there be a future invasion of Israel by soldiers on horseback carrying swords, shields, bows, arrows, spears, etc.?
Will they come to plunder Israel's cattle?
Will Israel burn their wooden war materials for fuel instead of trees for 7 years?
What text, plainly read, teaches a pre-trib rapture?
Did Jesus fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant or not?

Please answer without the word games. Explain them in light of their “plain meaning”.

Thanks.

[Jac3510]

Rather than reply to each of your paragraphs, I'll reply to each of your questions - that should cover everything. Then I'll add a personal note at the end:

• Will there be future animal sacrifices for the atonement of Israel?
  Will there be a return to circumcision in the flesh?

I take Ezekiel 40-48 LITERALLY. It says there will be atonement. Yes, there will be atonement. You will obviously immediately appeal to Hebrews 10 to say that I am building a contradiction. Now, if you want to talk about that, then we can. But before we do, you have to recognize that my original argument is then validated, which is that a literal hermeneutic invariably leads to dispensational premillennialism.

• Will there be a future invasion of Israel by soldiers on horseback carrying swords, shields, bows, arrows, spears, etc.?
  Will Israel burn their wooden war materials for fuel instead of trees for 7 years?

Every dispensationalist to ever explain and defend what a "literal" hermeneutic says the EXACT same thing regarding this type of question. "Literal" does not mean that we do not recognize figures. It means that we do not allegorize or spiritualize a text. They did not have tanks and planes in the OT. You cannot expect Ezekiel to use that terminology. If that is your greatest argument against dispensationalism, then your clinging to post-millennialism appears desperate at best.

• Will they come to plunder Israel's cattle?

Yup. Cattle was representative of wealth to an agrarian country, which is exactly what Israel was. See my above statement.

• What text, plainly read, teaches a pre-trib rapture?

2 Thess 2:3-11 is one example of a text that plainly teaches a pre-trib rapture once we accept the fact that a tribulational rapture is taught in Scripture. The obviousness of the pre-trib rapture depends on the obviousness of the fact that the rapture is a distinct event from the Second Coming. Since you see the two event as the same, it is impossible for you to see a tribulational rapture at all.

Let me show you what I mean by way of analogy. Arminians believe you can lose your salvation through sin or a loss of faithfulness. Now, it is plainly obvious that different saints will receive different rewards in heaven. Some will receive much praise, some only a little. Those rewards will be determined at the Bema Seat. Again, that is OBVIOUS (I assume you agree). However, for the Arminian, not only is it not obvious, but it is false. The reason is that they equate eternal salvation with the rewards passages. Thus, in James 1:12, for example, the "Crown of Life" is not a reward, but it is salvation itself. They do this for ALL rewards text. The reason is that salvation is conditioned on our behavior. If we persevere, then we do not lose our salvation, but we are rewarded with heaven.

The result of this theology is that no rewards are possible in heaven, but rather Heaven itself is the reward. All people will be totally equal. It is NOT "obvious" that rewards will be received by some, even though the Bible very clearly teaches this truth. They cannot see what the text plainly teaches because they have confused two very important doctrines: salvation by faith alone and rewards by perseverance.

You have done the same thing. When you equate the Rapture with the Second Coming, it becomes impossible for you to see what the text plainly teaches. You ask me for a text that plainly teaches a pre-trib rapture. PL, every text that teaches a rapture plainly teaches it to be pre-trib, but that is because it is plainly stated elsewhere that the Rapture and Second Coming are two different events. Until you see that, you won't be able to go any further down this road.

• Did Jesus fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant or not?

Of course He did. I preached on that this past week. But that does NOT mean that Israel has yet enjoyed the blessings of that fulfilment. Let me again make an argument by analogy. This time I will use an example from your own theology, even as I disagree with it.

Christ's death and resurrection purchased the salvation of all the Elect. However, many of the Elect have not yet been born. Therefore, we have an interesting thought in that these people's salvation is already bought and guaranteed to them even though they do not yet exist. In other words, these individuals have not yet received the salvation guaranteed to them. Does that mean that Jesus' work is therefore unfinished?

Of course not. You rightly argue that it is a simple matter of history playing out God's plan. From God's perspective, we can say that salvation has been applied, the transation is complete, and the fulfillment has come.

The same thing applies to the dispensational understanding of Jesus' fulfillment of the AC. He is the fulfillment, which means He guarantees that a future, literal Israel will receive their kingdom, and He will be their King. They have not yet received that fulfillment, but that does not change the fact that the fulfillment is accomplished. It is a simple matter of history playing out the fact.

-----------------------------------

As for my previous reply and your complaint of a lack of substance, the sad truth is that you and I could have a very, very solid and productive discussion. But it never happens for methodological reasons, and I ALWAYS complain about it. In every single thread where you and I discuss an issue, the same thing continuously comes up. You state a broad theological point, proof text it, offer no exegesis, do not reply to exegesis provided in reply, mock those who disagree with you, and when a point is made on a particular Scripture, you run to a different text to back up your understanding of the original. You consistently do this in varying degrees in every discussion. It happened in the Calvinism debate, in the Catholics/non-Catholics debate, in the Romans 9 debate, in the Olivet Discourse debate, in the predestination debate, in this one, and on and on.

I will answer any question you have. I'll answer them honestly. But I'll ask you AGAIN the same thing I ALWAYS ask for: forget your theological framework and let's talk about what individual texts say. Answer arguments when they are leveled at your position, and interact with the exegesis presented to you. Let's discuss the relevant texts on their own terms and not run to a million other texts. ttoews and I had a very good discussion following exactly those parameters on the "Lord, Lord!" passage. We disagree, but exegetically we were able to show our differences.

If you aren't going to do that, and you never have that I can really speak of, it is hard for me to have a serious discussion. Was my last reply a little sarcastic? Probably so. But if you want me to take you seriously, then return the favor and do the same with me.

God bless

[ttoews]

That is what you aren't getting. Let's use Gen 15:18-20 as an example. God promised Abraham that He would give a specific portion of land to his descendents. He even gave the boundaries. Now, the Jews have NEVER possessed that land. So you have to allegorize the text and say it refers to the future inheritance of heaven by the Church, or whatever you want to do with it.

Actually I look to passages such as :
Gen 6:6-8 Therefore, say to the Israelites: 'I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God. Then you will know that I am the Lord your God, who brought you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. And I will bring you to the land I swore with uplifted hand to give to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. I will give it to you as a possession. I am the Lord.'"

Joshua 21:45 Not one of all the Lord's good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled.
Joshua 23:14 "Now I am about to go the way of all the earth. You know with all your heart and soul that not one of all the good promises the Lord your God gave you has failed. Every promise has been fulfilled; not one has failed.

Acts 7:17 "As the time drew near for God to fulfill his promise to Abraham, the number of our people in Egypt greatly increased

….and I come to the conclusion that God says that He has fulfilled His promise to Abraham. You say that “Jews have NEVER possessed that land” and God says He fulfilled His promise to Abraham….so, (as you seem to be so fond of saying) it would seem that it is you who are calling God a liar.

…your hermeneutic forces you to believe that Scripture was, or is, unintelligible until future revelation takes place. I find that position absurd, plainly wrong, and downright offensive to the God we serve. God is not the author of confusion.

You say unintelligible, I say we are limited in our ability to understand scripture w/o further revelation and/or without guidance from the Holy Spirit. This is why you will see Christ, starting with Moses and all the Prophets, explain to a couple of disciples what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. The book of Ezekiel is the same. The book wasn't unintelligible nonsense to the Jews, but unless God explained to them that they would not be offering sacrifices for their atonement for all of eternity at a Temple, then that is likely what they would have understood the book to be saying….and if you are a standard dispensationalist, then you don't believe that the Jews would be offering sacrifices for their atonement for all of eternity at a Temple….and so your hermeneutic forces you to believe that Scripture was, or is, misunderstood until future revelation takes place.

Since you believe the OT passages are not to be taken literally, and since it took Jesus and the apostles to come along hundreds of years later to give their proper meaning, then how were the Jews to whom they were written supposed to know what God actually had in mind?

for a fuller understanding they would have to rely on God to explain it….same as us.

Were they capable of understanding what God really meant when He spoke through the prophets? Yes or no, ttoews?

No, the gospels clearly state that the disciples had a difficult time understanding the prophecies (even after further clarification from Christ).

ttoews wrote:No, taken plainly Jesus promises to come again.....and not to come again (pre-trib), and again (post-trib) and again (post-mill). It is a second coming and not a second, third and fourth coming.

I certainly hope you know that no one believes in both a pre and post trib rapture . . . if you don't, why are you even bothering with this discussion?

you are wrong here….there are a number of views with a multi-rapture understanding….but that isn't what I was talking about. In standard dispensationalism I believe that Jesus comes at a pre-trib rapture, at post-trib to defeat the beast and at post-mill at the head of an army of angels from heaven. Right?

ttoews wrote:Secondly, 1 Cor 15:51 speaks of a mystery which is that not all will sleep, but all will be changed, etc.

Try reading what I already said, dude. I'll bold the relevant part for you:
Taken plainly, the rapture and Second Coming are not the same events. The debate is between pre and post-trib rapture. 1 Cor 15:51 tells us the rapture was a mystery. The Second Coming, along with the resurrections associated with it, were not mysteries. Plainly, then, they are different events.
Let's do this mathematically so we can make things concrete. We are going to let A refer to the Rapture, and B refer to the second coming. We are going to let X refer to "a mystery."

If A=X, and A=B, then B=X.
If A=X, and B<>X, then A<>B.
See that? The Second Coming was NOT a mystery. The resurrection was NOT a myster. The rapture WAS a mystery. Therefore, the two events cannot be the same. Try again.

OK. Give me the passage that tells me that the Second Coming isn't a mystery. In 1 Cor Paul explains a mystery just like in other letters he explains the mystery of the gospel and the mystery of God, namely Christ. So then, how does Paul's reference to a mystery in 1 Cor 15:51 eliminate the possibility of the rapture being part of the Second Coming? Your math example is akin to saying, “It is a mystery to me as to what present is under the tree for me, but the Christmas celebration isn't a mystery, so the present can't be part of the Christmas celebration.

I am assuming that you know that the Revelation was written well after the epistles to the Corinthians.

I am assuming that you know that the Revelation was inspired by the same Author who inspired the epistles to the Corinthians

It is impossible, then, for Paul to be referring to an event THAT HAD NOT YET BEEN REVEALED.

not possible in a plain reading …last means last

There is absolutely NO REASON to equate the Last Trump here with the final trumpet in the Revelation. That's just retarded.

it would seem to me that the same Author would know of the last/final trumpet at the time he inspired both books…and last should mean last….unless, (as you are fond of saying) you are calling God a liar.

That goes back to what I said above about you believing that Scripture is unintelligible. Poor Corinthians . . . they didn't know that they should have just put that portion of Paul's letter aside and said to themselves, "Well, John will right in about thirty years from now to explain to us what the Last Trump is. So for now, we should ignore it. It can't mean anything to us."

just b/c one doesn't have a full understanding, it doesn't follow the limited understanding means nothing….eventually, as Paul explains, we will see clearly, and in the mean time we labour with what we have.

But don't bother telling me that you can be a literalist and not be a dispensationalist.

I didn't…what I am saying is that dispensationalists are not nearly as literal as they think they are.

[puritan lad]

I take Ezekiel 40-48 LITERALLY. It says there will be atonement. Yes, there will be atonement. You will obviously immediately appeal to Hebrews 10 to say that I am building a contradiction. Now, if you want to talk about that, then we can. But before we do, you have to recognize that my original argument is then validated, which is that a literal hermeneutic invariably leads to dispensational premillennialism.

Sorry, Jac, but there is no more sacrifice for those who reject Christ, animal or otherwise. For those who are His, however, there need be no more atonement. “It is Finished” (John 19:30). What you suggest will happen is impossible (Hebrews 10:4).

And I do not recognize that “that a literal hermeneutic invariably leads to dispensational premillennialism.” What I recognize in dispensational Premillennialism is selective literalism, as you show below. Prophecies are only “literal” when they can be fit into your preconceived scheme. Otherwise, they are allegorical. Your plain “literal” meaning of the time frame references are completely ignored. Christ “coming in His kingdom” must always refer to the Second Advent, except in Matthew 16:27-28, where the time frame reference cannot be explained away as easily. Old Testament prophecies are to be taken “literally”, while the New Testament claims of fulfillment must either be ignored, or shown as only a type of fulfillment (with no grounds whatsoever). How is this done? No problem. Just invent some mysterious 2,000 year gaps out of thin air and stick them into the O.T. and it works perfectly, at least until someone asks why you do that. Therefore, 70 weeks becomes 69 weeks plus whatever amount of time you wish to add on to it.

In defense of this, dispensationalists often ask, "how would the Judaist readers have understood the OT prophecies?" It's an amazing question coming from a Christian. The correct answer is, "who cares?" They missed it. They were wrong in every prophecy concerning the Messiah. Why would we grant them any knowledge in the rest of the promises? They reject the New Testament. The trouble here is that, for all intensive purposes, so does your interpretative method.

Also, dispensationalism make the original audience irrelevant to the prophecy, ie. Jesus threatens to cast the First Century church of Thyatira into the great tribulation (Rev. 2:22), even though all of its members will be dead 2,000 years before the great tribulation begins. In Dispensationalism, it is always the current generation that will see the end (after all, we saw 1948). It is we who are so important that we must be living at the climax of history. Those who Jesus, Peter, Paul, and Ezekiel were actually speaking to are merely an afterthought.

There are “literally” way too many inconsistencies for me to even list. For the postmillennialist, we have no problem with the literal fulfillment of Ezekiel 40-47, as long as you leave it in the Second Century B.C., where it belongs. When you claim a return to animal sacrifices, circumcision, temple worship, and other "weak and beggarly elements" after Christ's finished work, it begins to become a mockery of Christ. In the OT, those things pointed to Christ, not vice versa. From and eschatological standpoint, this is the most ridiculous part of Dispensationalism.

BTW, you didn't answer my question regarding circumcision of the flesh (Ezekiel 44:7-9).

2 Thess 2:3-11 is one example of a text that plainly teaches a pre-trib rapture once we accept the fact that a tribulational rapture is taught in Scripture.

First of all, I don't accept the “fact” that a tribulational rapture is taught in Scripture. I need for you to show me this in a “plain literal” passage. You are asking me to assume what you want to prove.

Second, Paul warns that “the mystery of lawlessness is already at work” (2 Thessalonians 2:7) in the first century

There are many passages that refute any sort of pre-Advent coming or earthly reign, such as Psalm 110:1.

As for my previous reply and your complaint of a lack of substance, the sad truth is that you and I could have a very, very solid and productive discussion. But it never happens for methodological reasons, and I ALWAYS complain about it. In every single thread where you and I discuss an issue, the same thing continuously comes up. You state a broad theological point, proof text it, offer no exegesis, do not reply to exegesis provided in reply, mock those who disagree with you, and when a point is made on a particular Scripture, you run to a different text to back up your understanding of the original.

Sorry Jac, but calling my position “silly” and “giggling” over them is not sound exegesis. It is a convenient way for you to avoid the questions and not have your “selective literalism” exposed. The fact is that most of the exegesis you provide usually assumes what you are trying to prove (see the pretrib rapture above). Therefore, if I reject your presupposition, I will logically reject your exegesis. I need go no further in defending my rejection until you prove your basic arguments. (And I won't apologize for using Scripture to interpret Scripture.) Per one of your examples in another thread, I need not accept your exegesis of John 3:16 if it requires me to ignore John 3:3 or the rest of the chapter.

Nowhere does the Bible say that Christ will reign “on earth” for 1,000 years. That interpretation requires eisogesis, not exegesis. Now if you can support a third Jewish temple, a Pre-trib, rapture, and an earthly millennial reign by Christ using “plain, literal meanings" of passages, I'm open to change my view. As of yet, I haven't seen even a glimpse of them.

God Bless,

PL

[puritan lad]

But don't bother telling me that you can be a literalist and not be a dispensationalist.

Let's see...

I believe that the weapons in Ezekiel are literally what they say they are. Do you?
I believe that the Great Tribulation literally happened within the Apostle's generation, just like Jesus said it would. Do you?
I believe that the man of lawlessness was already at work in the First Century, just like Paul said. Do you?
I believe that John wrote the Book of Revelation to seven literal first century churches in Asia, about things that were to happen "shortly", were "near", and were "about to come upon the land". Do you?
I believe that Daniel's 70 week prophecy was fulfilled literally in the time in which he said it would be. Do you?

I take all of these "literally". Do you?

I could add more, but this should suffice. You may drop the pretense of having a monopoly on "literalism". Dispensationalism, as I pointed out earlier, is very selective with it's "literalism". I think my response to Nathan Busenitz at Pulpit magazine outlines the two “literal” approaches to Scripture.

"In the end, premillennialists claim to “believe that God will do exactly what He said He would do in the Old Testament, in exactly the way He said He would do it.” [NB]. As a postmillennialist, I believe that God did exactly what He said He would do in the Old Testament, in exactly the way He says He did it in the New Testament, and exactly WHEN He said He would do it."

[Fortigurn]

Just to take a brief survey. For the past couple of years, whenever someone comes along and makes mention of anything regarding the end times, PL immediately pulls out the old stock preterist arguments. I've not seen many people dispute them. To the contrary, I've seen more support than anything else.

There are a number of problems with Praeterism, such as:

* The evidence does not support the fundamental claim

The Praeterist insists that the language of these prophecies was chosen specifically with the first generation of Christians in mind. The Praeterist interprets these symbols in a manner which they claim would have been perfectly natural and comprehensible to the earliest Christians.

If this is truly the case, then we ought to find the earliest interpretations to be consistent with the Praeterist understanding. Indeed, evidence of such an understanding by the earliest Christians is to be expected if the Praeterist case is true. But is this what we find when we examine the earliest Christian expositions of these passages? It is not.

* Praeterists falsely claim the Early Fathers were Praeterists

The central thesis of the Praeterist exegesis is that the key eschatological passages were fulfilled in the 1st century. It cannot be denied that this is indeed a novelty of the 17th century. It cannot be found before this time. The fact that some of the early expositors may have applied 'various visions to the early emperors of Pagan Rome' does not alter the fact that none of them believed that the key eschatological passages were fulfilled in the 1st century.

* The Early Fathers were in fact Historicists

No Praeterist living after the 1st century AD would have any expectation of the return of Christ, since the Praeterist position holds that Christ's 'coming' had already occurred in the 1st century. Any expositor living after the 1st century AD who expected Christ's soon return to earth, cannot be a Praeterist. We find none of the Early Fathers holding the Praeterist view of Christ's advent.

I look in at the preteristarchive from time to time. As was expected, Praeterism is splintering hopelessly into a mess of different groups with competing interpretations of Praeterism. Each group comes up against all the problems with the fundamental Praeterist case, tries to reconcile most of them, and ignores one or two. Those who find they can't ignore those one or two go off and develop another version of Praeterism, which repeats the pattern.

Over the years I've seen the versions of Praeterism on preteristarchive grow steadily. At first there was simply 'Partial Praterism' and 'Full Praterism'. Now there's a veritable cornucopia of choices:

* Partial Praterism

* Full Praterism

* Historical Praterism

* Modern Praeterism

* Praeterist-Idealism

* Universalist Praeterism

Various different expositors within these basic groups may hold competing ideas. From preteristarchive, here are some examples of the current infighting among Praeterists:

Sam Frost: Todd Dennis and Preteristic Idealism (2007) "Just because some universalists are using preterism for a framework that they think helps there case does not make Dennis' accusations here true. Dennis should be above such types of obvious fallacies. "

Kurt M. Simmons - Four Errors Current Among Preterists (2007) "The idea that the heavens and earth destroyed at the eschaton were the old law, naturally led to the idea that the new heavens and earth are the New Testament. King taught it; I taught it; many of us taught it. Unfortunately, it just is not true."

"As Preterists, we.." "I am just asking why, as Preterists, we are applying that scripture to us now? " / "We, as Preterists" - If we as preterists say the last day has happened, then logically THE Resurrection has happened — whatever it was."

When someone has reached the point where they're saying 'THE Resurrection has happened - whatever it was', it's clear they're totally at sea in terms of doctrinal understanding.

[puritan lad]

If this is truly the case, then we ought to find the earliest interpretations to be consistent with the Praeterist understanding. Indeed, evidence of such an understanding by the earliest Christians is to be expected if the Praeterist case is true. But is this what we find when we examine the earliest Christian expositions of these passages? It is not.

Which passages are you referring to? I can list a boatload of preterist writings regarding the Olivet Discourse and Daniel's 70 week prophecy from the early church, but of course, you already knew that. Therefore Preterism is anything but a 17th Century invention.

If you are refering to the Book of Revelation itself, then you are correct. However, there are very few writings on Revelation in the early church at all, and certainly no consensus on the millennium. But as I have shown on a number of occasions, Revelation and the Olivet Discourse are one and the same prophecy. Therefore, if a preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse is valid, as you have admitted, then so is a preterist interpretation of Revelation. I have also shown good evidence that the Beast was Nero. We can open that one again if you like.

The rest of your post is full of straw man arguments, mostly dealing with full preterism, which I also reject as a heresy. I'll let those defend the idea of a past bodily resurrection.