Evidence for God from Science

The following is the hermeneutic which I use for interpreting the Revelation. I provided this to Puritan Lad previously in a link which took him directly to this material, and yet he claimed I hadn't provided him with any links containing Scriptural exposition or arguments, only 'lists' of Early Church Fathers.


[1] The 'application' of prophecies in the New Testament:


[1.1] The application of a previous prophecy to an event (whether that prophecy has been fulfilled or not), is discerned by direct reference to such an application, which always explicitly refer to a previous prophecy being applied. Examples include 'This all happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled' (Matthew 1:22), 'for it is written this way by the prophet' (Matthew 2:5), 'In this way what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet was fulfilled' (Matthew 2:15), and 'Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled' (Matthew 2:17). Numerous examples of this pattern occur in the New Testament - it is invariable.

[1.2] This applies whether the prophecy is being interpreted as a formal predictive prophecy which is being literally fulfilled (Matthew 1:22), whether the prophecy is being applied typologically (Matthew 2:15, 17), or whether the prophecy is a formal predictive prophecy requiring two literal fulfilments (Acts 2:21).

[1.3] Christ himself uses this same pattern. Note that wherever he applies a prophecy to a subject which it did not originally concern, when he applies it to a different context to the original, he identifies clearly the fact that he is applying a specific prophecy in one context, to a new context:

• [1.3.1] Matthew 13:14 And concerning them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
  
  
  [1.3.2] Matthew 15:7 Hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you when he said,
  
  
  [1.3.3] Matthew 24:15 “So when you see the abomination of desolation—spoken about by Daniel the prophet—standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),
  
  
  [1.3.3] Mark 7:6 He said to them, “Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written:
  
  
  [1.3.4] Mark:14 “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains.
  
  
  [1.3.5] John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to me.
  
  
  [1.3.6] John 13:18 “What I am saying does not refer to all of you. I know the ones I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture, 'The one who eats my bread has turned against me.'
  
  
  [1.3.7] John 15:25 Now this happened to fulfill the word that is written in their law, 'They hated me without reason.'

We find no such references in the Revelation. We find Christ using symbols from other prophecies. He does not apply a prophecy to a subject which it did not originally concern, to a different context to the original, without actually referring to the source of the prophecy. The symbols themselves cannot be used to identify the context or specific subject of the prophecy. The context itself must be used to determine the specific subject of the prophecy.


[2] Symbols in Revelation:


[2.1] The symbolism of the book - general principles: The book uses symbols in precisely the same way as the rest of Scripture. Symbols represent qualities not entities (fire represents anything sharing the qualities of fire, water represents anything sharing the qualities of water, etc).

Symbols are therefore to be interpreted according to context, since the same symbol or set of symbols can be used in different contexts of completely different referents, though the qualities of the event or entity are always the same (thus the darkening of the sun and moon, and the falling of the stars, is used of different nations of empires, but always used of the fall of a nation or empire, Isaiah 13:9-10; 34:4, Ezekiel 32:7).

[2.2] The symbolism of the book - specific usage: Revelation takes symbols which in the Old Testament were used of the enemies of Israel, and applies them to the enemies of the servants of Christ. Revelation takes symbols which in the Old Testament were used of Israel and the Jews, and applies them to the body of Christ and to the Christians. The key to understanding this is found in the letters to the ecclesias in chapters 1 to 3, where these symbols are used with explicit referents.

Thus in Revelation 2 and 3, a false prophet (Balaam), is an apostate Christian who leads other Christians astray (Revelation 2:14), a harlot (Jezebel), is an apostate Christian who leads other Christians astray (Revelation 2:20-22), and satan (also 'the devil'), is the enemy of Christians who is currently persecuting them (Revelation 2:9-10, 13; 3:9). This supports the first premise. Usage of these symbols elsewhere in Revelation is congruent with this premise.

Thus also, in Revelation 1-3, a lampstand is an ecclesia, not a physical piece of furniture in the earthly temple (Revelation 1:20, 2:5), manna is the reward of faithful Christians, not natural Israel (Revelation 2:17), the temple of God is the body of Christians, not the earthly temple in Jerusalem (Revelation 3:12), and the holy city is the spiritual dwellingplace of God, not the earthly city of Jerusalem (Revelation 3:120. This supports the second premise. Usage of these symbols elsewhere in Revelation is congruent with this premise.[/list]


[3] The arena of events in Revelation is more than the land of Israel:

[3.1] Many passages and phrases indicate to us that the scope of the events is restricted neither to the group of people who constitute natural Israel, nor to the geographical area of the land of Israel and its immediate inhabitants.

Examples of these phrases include:

• [3.1.1] The four corners of the earth
  [3.1.2] The four winds
  [3.1.3] The Lord of the earth (the passage from Zechariah in the LXX from which this is quoted specifies the Lord of the whole earth)
  [3.1.4] The kings of the earth
  [3.1.5] The tribes of the earth
  [3.1.6] Those who live on the earth (who are also described as 'every nation, tribe, language, and people')

[3.2] These phrases are consistently used in the Old Testament (LXX), of Gentile nations outside Israel. This is verifiable. The usage is the same in the New Testament. Any interpretation of these phrases which contradicts their verifiable usage is wrong.


[3.3] The area in which the prophetic events of the book take place is defined as an area far wider than simply the land of Israel and its immediate surroundings:

• [3.3.1] The Philadelphian ecclesia is told that they will be kept safe from future 'hour of testing that is about to come on the whole OIKOUMENH [Roman empire] to test those who live on the earth' (Revelation 3:10)
  
  
  [3.3.2] The group described as 'those who live on the earth' (defined as 'every nation, tribe, language, and people', by Revelation 11:9, 14:6), are frequently described as the subject of the prophetic passages - they are judged for their persecution of the saints (Revelation 6:10), they are described as making merry over the death of God's witnesses, who tormented them (Revelation 11:10), they are informed of the gospel and warned of impending judgment (Revelation 14:6-7), and they wonder at the beast (Revelation 17:8)
  
  
  [3.3.3] The 'kings of the earth' are described as the subjects of the judgment of the sixth seal (Revelation 6:15)
  
  
  [3.3.4] John sees 'four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth so no wind could blow on the earth, on the sea, or on any tree' (Revelation 7:1)
  
  
  [3.3.5] That the prophecy John is given encompasses an area far wider than simply the land of Israel and its immediate surroundings is made explicit by the statement of the angel who instructs him 'You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations,languages, and kings' (Revelation 10:11)
  
  
  [3.3.6] Central to the prophecy concerning the 1,260 days of God's witnesses are 'those from every people, tribe, nation, and language', who oppose the witnesses (Revelation 11:9)
  
  
  [3.3.7] The beast which makes war against Christ has an army which consists of 'the kings of the earth and their armies' (Revelation 19:19)
  
  
  [3.3.8] Prior to the final battle, John sees 'satan' going out 'to deceive the nations at the four corners of the earth' (Revelation 20:8)
  
  
  [3.3.9] The dominion of Christ's kingdom is said to include 'nations', who will 'walk by its light', and 'the kings of the earth', who will 'bring their grandeur into it' (Revelation 20:24)

[3.4] The area dominated by the central figures in the prophetic passages of Revelation is defined as an area far wider than simply the land of Israel and its immediate surroundings:

• [3.4.1] The dragon with 7 heads and 10 horns 'deceives the whole OIKOUMENH [Roman empire]' (Revelation 12:9)
  
  
  [3.4.2] The beast of the sea receives the same 'power, throne, and authority' as the dragon of Revelation 12 (Revelation 13:2)
  
  
  [3.4.3] Further proof of this is the fact that the beast of the sea rules over 'every tribe, people, language, and nation' (Revelation 13:7)
  
  
  [3.4.4] The 'spirits of demons' go out to deceive 'the kings of the earth and of the whole OIKOUMENH [Roman empire]' (Revelation 16:14)
  
  
  [3.4.5] The harlot which kills the servants of Christ commits fornication with 'the kings of the earth', has a kingdom which consists of 'peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues', and rules over 'the kings of the earth' (Revelation 17:2, 15, 18; 18:3, 9)
  
  
  [4] The saints are the focus of Revelation:
  
  
  [4.1] The saints are not 'natural Israel' in the Old Testament. They always represent those in faithful covenant relationship with God, whether they are natural Jews or not. Therefore we find that they are sometimes angels (Deuteronomy 33:2, Job 5:1; 15:15, Daniel 8:13), sometimes natural Jews specifically (Psalm 148:14; 149:1), sometimes more generally those mortals in covenant with God regardless of nationality (Psalm 50:5; 97:10; 116:15; 149:9; Proverbs 2:8), and in at least four places it could refer either to those in Christ, to the angels, or to both, but certainly excludes 'natural Israel' (Daniel 7:18, 22, 27, Zechariah 14:5).
  
  [4.2] The term 'saints' a term used consistently in the New Testament to describe those who are in Christ (Acts 9:13, 32, 41; 26:10, Romans 1:7; 8:27; 12:13; 15:25-6, 31; 16:2, 15, 1 Corinthians 1:2; 6:1-2; 14:33; 16:1, 15, 2 Corinthians 1:1; 8:4; 9:1, 12; 13:13, Ephesians 1:1, 15, 18; 2:19; 3:8, 18; 4:12; 5:3; 6:18, Philippians 1:1; 4:22, Colossians 1:2, 4, 12, 26, 1 Thessalonians 3:13, 2 Thessalonians 1:10, 1 Timothy 5:10, Philemon 1:5, 7, Hebrews 6:10; 13:24, Jude 1:3, 14).
  
  [4.3] The saints (whether referred to as 'saints', those sealed with the name of God, the 'servants of God', the 'seed of the woman', 'those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus', 'those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus', or the 'witnesses of Jesus'), are specifically identified in Revelation as the subject of the events prophesied, both persecution and redemption (Revelation 6:9-11; 7:3, 13-14; 8:3-4; 11:18; 13:7, 10, 12; 14:1, 12; 16:6, 17:6; 18:24).
  
  [4.4] It is unavoidable that the key prophetic events are said to come upon the saints (defined as the faithful in Christ), and that the war of the central enemies in Revelation is directed against this group:
  
  
  • [4.4.1] This is the group identified as having come out of the great tribulation described in Revelation ('the servants of our God, 'who have come out of the great tribulation', 'have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb!', 'I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God', Revelation 7:3, 13-14, 20:4)
    
    
    [4.4.2] The dragon (the pagan Roman empire, as we both agree), makes war specifically on this group ('the accuser of our brothers', 'to make war on the rest of her children, those who keep God's commandments and hold to the testimony about Jesus', Revelation 12:10, 17)
    
    
    [4.4.3] The beast of the sea (which arises proximate to the dragon, the pagan Roman empire), makes war specifically on this group ('The beast was permitted to go to war against the saints and conquer them', 'This requires steadfast endurance and faith from the saints', Revelation 13:7,10)
    
    
    [4.4.4] The harlot makes war specifically on this group ('drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of those who testified to Jesus', 'The blood of the saints and prophets was found in her, along with the blood of all those who had been killed on the earth', Revelation 17:6; 18:24)
  Throughout the entire series of prophetic chapters, we find this group identified as the subject of the events prophesied. Nowhere do we find these events described as coming upon natural Israel.

[5] The prophetic background in Daniel:


[5.1] The Revelation shares significant material with the prophecy of Daniel, specifically with chapters 2, 7 and 12. In Daniel 2 and 7 we find a prophecy regarding the 'fourth kingdom on earth'. The prophecy of Daniel describes this kingdom in chapters 2 and 7. In both places it indicates that this kingdom will be a violent and destructive kingdom, which would break all others into pieces. In chapter 7, this kingdom is stated specifically to persecute God's people - the saints (Daniel 7:25).

[5.2] In both Daniel 2 and 7 the kingdom is identifiable clearly as the Roman empire. Furthermore, in both Daniel 2 and 7, the violent activities of this empire (including, in Daniel 7, its persecution of God's people), are described not only up to the time of Christ, but demonstrably past the date of the fall of the Roman empire in 476 AD.

[5.3] The prophecy is clearly indicating to us that the persecution of the people of God by this beast does not terminate in the 1st century, but continues well after the 5th. This empire continues to exist in some form up to the return of Christ (Daniel 7:11-14), at which point the kingdom of God is given over to the saints (whom the New Testament defines as those the faithful in Christ).

[5.4] The same beast is found in Revelation, where the same description of it and its activities is given (Revelation 11, 13, 17, and 19). The evidence from these passages is that God has revealed to us the full extent and scope of this beast's persecution and activities, right up to the time of Christ's return, and including its persecution of those in Christ, not merely natural Israel.

What I specifically asked for was scriptural arguments against Preterism, which you have yet to give. I'll post my hermeutic at a later time, as you have me quite busy with patristics right now.

puritan lad wrote:What I specifically asked for was scriptural arguments against Preterism, which you have yet to give.

Not only have I given you plenty in a number of links, I have also directed you to the Scriptural arguments I used in our discussion of the Olivet prophecy and its relationship to the Revelation, arguments you have yet to answer. I started this thread for that purpose, months ago. Unanswered Scriptural arguments remain here, here ('To date, the largest part of my argument has been completely unaddressed by you', and a list of arguments follows), and here.

I did address your questions, as any reader of that thread can see. If there is any specific argument that you have against Preterism that you feel I failed to address, list them here. (You may not have liked my answers, but they were answered.)

In turn, you failed to answer quite a few of my questions, (Plus you acknowledged in a therad months ago that the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse in 70 AD was compatible with Historicism, a view that you seem to be backtracking on.)

In addition, scholars from many different viewpoints recognize the connection between Revelation 6 and Matthew 24. The problem for non-preterists remains Matthew 24:34, and I have yet to hear any acceptable alternative view. As I showed in another thread, the connections between Revelation and passages concerning Christ's judgment against Jerusalem are too numerous to ignore. If you like, I'll repost them after I finish my church history study.

puritan lad wrote:I did address your questions, as any reader of that thread can see. If there is any specific argument that you have against Preterism that you feel I failed to address, list them here. (You may not have liked my answers, but they were answered.)

No you didn't. If you think you did, then please link to the posts of yours in which the questions to which I've linked are answered.

In turn, you failed to answer quite a few of my questions...

List them.

Plus you acknowledged in a therad months ago that the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse in 70 AD was compatible with Historicism, a view that you seem to be backtracking on.)

This is only half the truth. I told you that the fulfilment of most of the Olivet prophecy in 70 AD was compatible with Historicism, but not the literal return of Christ to judge the world.

In addition, scholars from many different viewpoints recognize the connection between Revelation 6 and Matthew 24.

So what?

As I showed in another thread, the connections between Revelation and passages concerning Christ's judgment against Jerusalem are too numerous to ignore. If you like, I'll repost them after I finish my church history study.

And as I showed, the fact that the two prophecies use similar language does not necessarily mean they have the same subject. To argue otherwise is to commit the fallacy of the undistributed middle. You even agreed to this previously.

Fortigurn wrote:

puritan lad wrote:I did address your questions, as any reader of that thread can see. If there is any specific argument that you have against Preterism that you feel I failed to address, list them here. (You may not have liked my answers, but they were answered.)

No you didn't. If you think you did, then please link to the posts of yours in which the questions to which I've linked are answered.

In turn, you failed to answer quite a few of my questions...

List them.

For one, how many great tribulations will there be? You never answered that. More details later...

Fortigurn wrote:

Plus you acknowledged in a therad months ago that the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse in 70 AD was compatible with Historicism, a view that you seem to be backtracking on.)

This is only half the truth. I told you that the fulfilment of most of the Olivet prophecy in 70 AD was compatible with Historicism, but not the literal return of Christ to judge the world.

I never said it was literal, and neither does the Olivet Discourse. He did return to judge "those wicked men miserably" (Matthew 21:33-45). Even a good number of church fathers say so, since you seem tolike that angle.

Fortigurn wrote:

In addition, scholars from many different viewpoints recognize the connection between Revelation 6 and Matthew 24.

So what?

So you have yet to show why that argument should be rejected.

Fortigurn wrote:

As I showed in another thread, the connections between Revelation and passages concerning Christ's judgment against Jerusalem are too numerous to ignore. If you like, I'll repost them after I finish my church history study.

And as I showed, the fact that the two prophecies use similar language does not necessarily mean they have the same subject. To argue otherwise is to commit the fallacy of the undistributed middle. You even agreed to this previously.

But they don't use merely similar language, they use identical language in many cases, enough to convince many of the connection. You haven't given a good reason to not make the connection. Why should we not use scripture to interpret scripture, as opposed to the historicist allegorizing the seven churches, without any foundation whatsoever?

The Superiority of the Amillennial/Postmillennial Hermeneutic

1.) It is Christocentric. It makes Christ the center of all Biblical Covenants, not a piece of earthly real estate.
The entire Bible is a story of redemption in Jesus Christ. This includes the Covenants of the Old Testament. It was Christ alone who fulfilled the Adamic Covenant of works (2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 5:17). It was Christ alone whose blood is a worthy atonement for man's life in the Noahic Covenant (Hebrews 9:12). It was Christ and Christ alone who is the seed of Abraham by which all nations are blessed (Galatians 3:8, 14-16, 29). It was Christ alone who was “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), and it is Christ alone who was resurrected from the dead to sit on the throne of David (Acts 2:29-35). Finally, there is only one new Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34), of which Christ alone is the mediator. (Hebrews 8:8-12).

In contrast, those who hold to the self-anointed “literal hermeneutic” err in honoring Judaism, the vain attempt to keep the Old Covenant while rejecting Christ. There is no covenant without Christ, and there never has been. Even the Old Testament saints worshipped Christ (1 Corinthians 10:1-4).

2.) It notes the universal scope of the Abrahamic Covenant (as key) to interpreting the rest of the biblical covenants. It sees salvation history oriented to a person (Christ), instead of a people (the nation of Israel).
The Abrahamic Covenant was not merely a promise of blessings to one nation, for God promised Abraham that he would “be the father of a multitude of nations.” (Genesis 17:4). It is the Christians of many nations who “are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:29). In contrast, those who rejected Christ do not belong to God or Abraham, but the Devil (John 8:39-44).

Those who hold to the “literal” interpretation have no understanding of the mystery, “that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” (Ephesians 3:6). In contrast, the Amillennial/Postmillennial Hermeneutic emphasizes continuity between the “people of God” (Israel and the Church are one in Christ (Ephesians 2:11). It does not assume a covenant with Christ-rejectors, not does it make God a respected of race or DNA.

3.) It takes seriously the time frame references in Scripture, as well as the original audience, and does not seek to rip them from their historical context.
In the amillennial/postmillennial hermeneutic, it is unnecessary to explain away the time frame references in Scripture. We hold that all of the events of the Olivet Discourse took place within the Apostle's generation, just like Christ said they would. (Matthew 24:34). We hold that the events of the Book of Revelation were to take place “shortly” (Revelation 1:1), were “near” (Revelation 1:3), and were “about to come upon the whole land” (Revelation 3:10).

We hold that the prophecies in the Bible actually meant something to those who heard or received them in the First Century. We don't believe that Jesus told His disciples to flee Judea during a tribulation that would take place 2,000 years in the future (Matthew 24:16). We do not believe that Christ threatened to throw the church of Thyatira into a great tribulation that was still 2,000 years away (Revelation 2:22), nor do we believe that He promised to keep the church of Philadelphia from events that none of them would ever live to see (Revelation 3:10). Furthermore, we do not require arbitrary 2,000 year gaps between Old Testament prophecies, nor does it seek to “allegorize” the seven churches that John wrote to.

4.) It flows from a hermeneutic that takes seriously the literary character of the Scriptures (esp. the book of Revelation)
Other schools claim to hold to a more “literal” hermeneutic, but it is clear that their literalism is selectively and arbitrarily applied (as can be seen from Futurism's view of Ezekiel, and well as Matthew 26:27-28 vs. Matthew 25:31). The truth of the matter is that there isn't very much in the Book of Revelation that is to be taken “literally”. The question isn't one of literal vs. symbolic, but rather how best to interpret the symbols. The symbols in Revelation are not arbitrary, but have clear and distinct meanings. Furthermore, these symbols were expected to be understood by those to whom the prophecy was given (Revelation 1:3). We hold that the apocalyptic language used in Scripture can be interpreted by other scriptures, and in doing so, the Book of Revelation can be understood. (It is entitled “Revelation”, not “Mystery”.)

5.) It takes seriously the authority of the New Testament in interpreting Old Testament prophecy.
It is amazing to me how many Christians will openly deny this point. They will claim that they refuse to use the New Testament to interpret Old Testament prophecy, which brings up the obvious question of what they do use. The Old Testament prophecies cannot be properly understood without the New Testament, for the New Testament was given so that “you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.” (Ephesians 3:4-5). Jesus warned the Judaist of His day, saying, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.” (John 5:39-40). To ignore what the New Testament says about Old Testament prophecy is nothing short of a denial of the authority of the New Testament.

Even this is selectively applied. All Christians, for example, use the New Testament to interpret Old Testament prophecies such as Micah 5:2-4 (see Matthew 2:6). So on what basis will they reject Peter's fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant (Acts 2:25-36), Paul's fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (Galatians 3:1-29), or the writer of Hebrews fulfillment of the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:6-12). So when they claim they a literal hermeneutic, applied consistently, always leads to premillennialism, don't believe it. If followed consistently, it would lead to Judaism. (BTW: There is no mention of a millennium in the Old Testament, or anywhere outside of Revelation 20.)

puritan lad wrote:For one, how many great tribulations will there be? You never answered that.

On the contrary, I answered it several times:

* Here

* Here

* Here

* Here

Here's one of my answers:

The 'great tribulation' in the Olivet prophecy is confined to Israel and the Jews. It does not refer at all to a tribulation on the entire OIKOUMENH. Whatever tribulation is spoken of in the letter to Philadelphia, it cannot be the 'great tribulation' of the Olivet propheccy (note also that no 'great tribulation' is referred to in Revelation 11).

There's plenty more in the posts to which I've linked.

Fortigurn wrote:

Plus you acknowledged in a therad months ago that the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse in 70 AD was compatible with Historicism, a view that you seem to be backtracking on.)

This is only half the truth. I told you that the fulfilment of most of the Olivet prophecy in 70 AD was compatible with Historicism, but not the literal return of Christ to judge the world.

I never said it was literal, and neither does the Olivet Discourse. He did return to judge "those wicked men miserably" (Matthew 21:33-45). Even a good number of church fathers say so, since you seem tolike that angle.

I agree that Christ came to judge 'those wicked men miserably', I just disagree that the Olivet prophecy speaks of it. Did you note that the 'coming in clouds' of the Olivet prophecy only takes place after the events of 70 AD, when the Temple has already been destroyed, Jerusalem trodden down, and the Jews scattered into all nations? That's right, it doesn't take place until after the tribulation of those days.

Fortigurn wrote:

In addition, scholars from many different viewpoints recognize the connection between Revelation 6 and Matthew 24.

So what?

So you have yet to show why that argument should be rejected.

Of course I have. I've identified your reliance on the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

Fortigurn wrote:

As I showed in another thread, the connections between Revelation and passages concerning Christ's judgment against Jerusalem are too numerous to ignore. If you like, I'll repost them after I finish my church history study.

And as I showed, the fact that the two prophecies use similar language does not necessarily mean they have the same subject. To argue otherwise is to commit the fallacy of the undistributed middle. You even agreed to this previously.

But they don't use merely similar language, they use identical language in many cases, enough to convince many of the connection. You haven't given a good reason to not make the connection.

Let me remind you of your own words:

* 'my assertion that Revelation includes a Judgment on Israel isn't based solely on the apocalyptic language used'

* 'It COULD very well be a prophecy against any nation, based on the language above, but isn't'

* 'The apocalyptic language is never tied to any one nation. For example, the Bible describes a "cloud judgment" many times, and while the meaning is the same, it happens to many nations such as Egypt (Isaiah 19:1), Assyria (Nahum 1:3), and in the NT, Jerusalem'

That's right, even if the language is identical, 'The apocalyptic language is never tied to one nation', and 'It COULD very well be a prophecy against any nation'. You need to remember that your argument 'isn't based solely on the apocalyptic language used'.

Why should we not use scripture to interpret scripture, as opposed to the historicist allegorizing the seven churches, without any foundation whatsoever?

We should certainly use Scripture to interpret Scripture, but we should do it properly. Committing the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle is not interpreting Scripture with Scripture. And you can bash the 'seven churches' allegorization all you like, it has no place in my exposition. It isn't even a definitive part of Historicist exposition. Many Historicists have rejected it over the centuries. It has been surprisingly uncommon, in fact.

puritan lad wrote:The Superiority of the Amillennial/Postmillennial Hermeneutic

You're actually supposed to be providing a Praeterist hermeneutic. This looks like boilerplate copied from an argument with a Premillennial Dispensationalist. Most of it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I'll deal with a few key points:

1.) It is Christocentric.

Wow, so are other hermeneutics.

In contrast, those who hold to the self-anointed “literal hermeneutic”...

Fortunately I don't.

2.) It notes the universal scope of the Abrahamic Covenant (as key) to interpreting the rest of the biblical covenants. It sees salvation history oriented to a person (Christ), instead of a people (the nation of Israel).

So do other hermeneutics.

Those who hold to the “literal” interpretation...

Which I don't.

3.) It takes seriously the time frame references in Scripture, as well as the original audience, and does not seek to rip them from their historical context.

Well done! So do other hermeneutics. You should be saying this to the Dispensational Futurists, not me.

We hold that the prophecies in the Bible actually meant something to those who heard or received them in the First Century. We don't believe that Jesus told His disciples to flee Judea during a tribulation that would take place 2,000 years in the future (Matthew 24:16). We do not believe that Christ threatened to throw the church of Thyatira into a great tribulation that was still 2,000 years away (Revelation 2:22), nor do we believe that He promised to keep the church of Philadelphia from events that none of them would ever live to see (Revelation 3:10). Furthermore, we do not require arbitrary 2,000 year gaps between Old Testament prophecies, nor does it seek to “allegorize” the seven churches that John wrote to.

Hear, hear! Historicists are with you! Again, this is really aimed at Dispensational Futurists, it has little or nothing to do with what we're discussing.

4.) It flows from a hermeneutic that takes seriously the literary character of the Scriptures (esp. the book of Revelation)

Great, so does Historicism.

5.) It takes seriously the authority of the New Testament in interpreting Old Testament prophecy.

So does Historicism. But Historicists don't usually believe that the inspired apostolic interpretation of Old Testament passages (or, more commonly, their typological application of such prophecies), gives any uninspired person the right to come along and re-interpret the Old Testament wholesale, in accordance with their own personal theology.

The Old Testament prophecies cannot be properly understood without the New Testament...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That is all.