ttoews wrote:Jac3510 wrote: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.
ttoews . . . I already
had this discussion on this passage with PL in which I showed that he believes in an errant Bible if he wants to continue with this interpretation. Despite two requests for clarification, he never commented, so maybe you can pick up his slack?
Here's a copy/paste of the relevant part of that post:
--------------------
If there is any further question . . . here is a map of the land Joshua conquered, as provided by the Bible Atlas Online (note: due to size, I cropped and edited the picture).
(Here is the
link to another map that shows the conquest of Canaan.
Now, Gen. 15:18-20 says that the Promised Land begins at the Nile and goes all the way to the Euphrates. It is very obvious that Joshua did not, in fact, conquer all of those lands. You'd have better luck arguing that the promises were fulfilled in Solomon's day. It is probably better to take these passages you have referenced as a fulfillment of the land promises in Numbers 34.
Besides all of this, even if it were true that the land had been completel possessed, which we see is not the case, it would not matter because Gen. 17:8 says the land will be an "everlasting possession." The fact that they were exiled proves that the land still must be restored. It is here that you are required to allegorize the texts into spiritual land, but that is simply not taking God to mean what He says.
--------------------------------------
This a really simple thing, ttoews. The promises to the forefathers were not those to Abraham. They were those to the first generation brought out of Exodus that died because of their unbelief. All those promises WERE fulfilled.
So, look AGAIN: Gen 15 gives a list of the land they were to possess and were to possess FOREVER. They have NEVER possessed that land, much less possessed it FOREVER. There are only three possibilities then:
1. God was wrong / we have an errant Bible
2. God never intended on giving Israel the land promised in Gen 15, but instead had some spiritualized concept in mind,
3. God will make good on His promise in the future.
I take 3, because I TAKE THE BIBLE LITERALLY. You take 2. You spiritualize the text. Therefore, Abraham was INCAPABLE of understanding the promise of God. Let's push it just a little further, ttoews:
Suppose I buy a car from you. You draw up a contract that says I owe you $200 a month for 24 months with a downpayment of $1000, no interest. I agree. I hand you the $1000 and walk away with keys in hand. The next month, I don't pay. Nor the next. Nor the next. Nor the next. You call to repossess the car, we go to court, and I say this to the judge:
"Well, you see Judge, I AM fulfilling my obligation. ttoews and I agreed that I would pay $200 a month for the car. That is what I am doing. Of couse, I didn't REALLY mean two hundred LITERAL dollars. I actually was referring to the time I would spend in prayer for him. I charge $50 an hour for prayer, so I pray for him one hour a week." That obviously wouldn't fly. You can't spiritualize a promise like that. It would be DISHONEST of me to try to make an argument. In the sam way, it would be DISHONEST of God to make a promise to Abraham knowing full well He would never fulfill it as He stated it. It renders the promise unintelligible.
So no, ttoews, I don't consider God a liar. I believe He is telling the complete and total truth. Do you?
ttoews wrote: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.
There is a difference in a wrong interpretation and an interpretation that CANNOT be reached. Show me ONE passage in the OT that cannot be understood without NT revelation. The NT may further clarify and OT prophecy, but they never change the foundations already laid. They always add more detail.
Let's use Gen 15 again. God promised the Jews a SPECIFIC PIECE OF LAND. Can you blame them for thinking they would get it? You say, "Well, they just didn't understand that God was promising them that land in a spiritual sense. That's why God told them that part two thousand years later." So, it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to properly understand the promise. That makes Scripture unintelligible.
Let's take a NT promise. Rom 8:28 tells me that God will cause all things to work for my good. But who knows? Maybe God doesn't mean that. Maybe there is some other way of looking at that He hasn't told me about that He will later on, hmm? Maybe by "for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose," He is actually referring to some group we don't know anything about yet because He hasn't told us about them. Now, in two thouand years, when we are gone, that group will laugh at us for thinking we could claim that promise. But new revelation will clearly tell them that God REALLY was referring to them, not to us.
In the end, that is what you are saying God did to the Jews. Silly Jews. They thought the promises were to them . . .
And btw, I do, as of today, believe in future sacrifices for atonement in a Third Jewish Temple because that is what Ezekiel 40-48 says will happen. You have simply misunderstood Hebrews 10. That is why the OT has to control your understanding of the NT, because you come up with the wrong understanding of the NT without the OT.
ttoews wrote:Jac3510 wrote: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.
Wait, wait, wait - so look at what you said. The Jews had to WAIT ON FURTHER REVELATION before they could understand what God meant?!?!? So . . . Scripture was, to them at that time, unintelligible. They didn't have enough information to interpret it properly.
You should REALLY rethink your hermeneutic, ttoews.
ttoews wrote:Jac3510 wrote: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).
I didn't ask if it was difficult or easy. I asked if it was POSSIBLE. If it was impossible, then it is NOT THEIR FAULT that they missed their Messiah. You and PL want to tell me that the reason they missed the Messiah was that they misinterpreted the prophecies. But then you are going to tell me that it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to come to the correct interpretation?
Let's use another example. You take a class on world history. The teacher lectures you on the history of Rome. He then hands you an exam and asks you when it was founded. You say, as according to the lecture, it was founded in April 21, 753 B.C. He hands back your paper and marks it wrong. In fact, ALL the answers are marked wrong. You ask why. Wasn't Rome founded in 753 BC? He says yes . . . but he wasn't talking about that Rome. He was talking about Rome, Georgia, which was founded in the mid 1800's immediately following the Trail fo Tears. He tells you that you will talk about that in the next lecture.
Of course, you would be peaved. The test question was unintelligible. You were incapable of giving the correct answer because you were incapable of understanding what the professor was asking. And you want me to believe that is what God did to the Jews? What is to say He isn't doing that to us?
ttoews wrote: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?
Wrong. Very, very, very wrong. The only "multi-rapture" view relates to those who believe in a partial rapture. It's never been seriously considered among dispensationalists broadly. But beyond that, you are just flat wrong 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."
Actually, Jesus "comes" at a pre-trib rapture. The Second Coming is at the end of the Tribluation, which is when he heads an army of angels and saints from heaven. There is no post-mill coming. None. It is true that at the end of the millennium, there will be an uprising, but Jesus will put an end to taht by inaugurating the Great White Throne Judgment and the creation of the New Heavens and New Earth. But there is no "coming." Jesus will be here, on earth, for that.
ttoews wrote: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 could list dozens and dozens, but I suppose that one that first jumps to mind is Zech 14:4-5:
- On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south. You will flee by my mountain valley, for it will extend to Azel. You will flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.
This is a reference to the Second Coming (it obviously isn't the First Coming!). By definition, the, the Second Coming is not a mystery because the manner in which the Messiah would come is plainly stated in the OLD TESTAMENT.
This was understood by the New Testament Saints. In Acts 1:9-11, Jesus has just ascended at the Christians at the scene are told:
- After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. 10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 "Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."
So, the Second Coming is not a mystery. Paul says the rapture IS (or, prior to his revelation, it WAS) a mystery. Therefore, the two events CANNOT be the same thing.
I am assuming, by the way, that you know that the word "mystery" means "a fact not previously revealed," right? It isn't something confusing or something hard to understand.
ttoews wrote:Jac3510 wrote: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
And that has what to do with anything? Do you think when Paul wrote the words "last trump" he knew there would be seven trumps? And for the record, if you want to insist that the last trump in Corinthians must refer to the last trump in the Revelation, you are aware that the last trump in the Revelation is NOT the end of the tribulation period, right? The last trump signals the BEGINNING of the bowl judgments. See Revelation 11:15. No matter how you cut it, this AGAIN proves the rapture to be a seperate event from the Second Coming, because Jesus does not come back when the last trump is blown, as per the Revelation. So, since God had the last trump from Revelatio in mind when He inspired Paul to say the Rapture happens at the last trump, and sense the last trump happens before the seven bowl judgments, then you believe in a future mid-tribulational rapture, right?
ttoews wrote:Jac3510 wrote: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
So when Jesus says He will raise us up on the Last Day, He was wrong (John 6:40)? I mean, since 1 Cor says that the dead will be raised at the last trump, and the last trump is the seventh trump of the Revelation, but there are still a lot of days left after that event, then clearly Jesus was wrong. He won't raise us on the LAST day. He will raise us on a day pretty close to the last day. Right?
Or, another possibility is that "last" has a range of meanings like . . . say . . . yom? All of which are literal?
ttoews wrote: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.
See above. I think I'm the only one in this thread who belives God is telling the truth so far.
ttoews wrote: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
I already addressed this above . . . Rome/Rome.
ttoews wrote:I didn't…what I am saying is that dispensationalists are not nearly as literal as they think they are.
There have been some interpretations from the dispensationalist camp where they have allegorized. They are wrong in doing so. But dispensationalism, as a system, says we take the Bible literally. I do that. If I don't take something literally--if I spiritulize it--then point it out and I will revise my understanding.
Until then, I hold to my original argument. Dispensatonalism is the ONLY method of interpretation that takes the text to
mean what it says, and that, of course, in its historical, literary, and grammatical contexts. You don't do that. You spiritualize texts precisely because your system creates contradictions in the Bible (i.e., Gen 15).
Here's a suggestion for you. If your system creates contradictions, rather than saying one passage doesn't really mean what it says and changing the meaning, try letting Scripture decide what you believe and let IT inform your theology. That's something we all should do. I am constantly finding places that my theology had me informing Scripture. We have to submit our thinking to the Bible, my friend. Not the other way around.
God bless