|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Rapture?
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The Wikipedia article (can't post link as there are parentheses in it) does not bear out the contention that Anderson was a founder of Scotland Yard - rather it suggests that it was well established by the time Anderson was appointed there. It also suggests to me that his career after his early successes in the campaigns against Fenians was rather less than successful. Usual disclaimers.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Hermeneutical pareidolia.
You might as well say that any hermeneutical theorising is pareidolia.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
What was John doing when he wrote Revelations?
Primarily putting forward a 'revelation of Jesus Christ'. He is telling his readers something about Jesus.
He was writing something for the edification and comfort of beleaguered believers in the late 1st century and using an apocalyptic style to convey the sense that God is in control and that despite all setbacks the kingdoms of this world will become the Kingdom of our God and of his Christ.
What he isn't doing is laying down a blue-print to help us set our watches for the final countdown.
You seem to have a thing about the 'spiritual world' as if there are some kind of Platonic forms thing going on here in some kind of literal sense.
As if the locusts exist in some kind of parallel dimension that John was somehow enabled to 'see'.
I don't particularly have an issue with the idea of 'thin places ' in the Celtic sense or times when we might become more aware of God's presence - but in talking about that sort of thing we have to resort to metaphor and symbolism - which is exactly what John does.
So, with the locusts he's saying something like, 'This judgement is so all pervasive that it's as rapacious as locusts, so sharp that it's like a deadly sting, so universal that it affects both sexes and all conditions of mankind.'
It doesn't mean he necessarily 'saw' locust-like hybrid human/scorpion creatures that are one day going to descend to earth.
It's like heraldry. No-one thinks that gryphons literally stand there supporting shields.
Ok, I know The Pilgrim's Progress isn't scripture, but do we take Bunyan literally when he tells us he dreamed the story of Christian Pilgrim on his journey to the heavenly city?
No, of course not.
Now, I'm not suggesting John was telling porkies or 'making things up' as it were, but neither do I think he simply wrote things down in a reportage sense.
That's not how apocalyptic literature works, that's not how the scriptures work.
He will have composed and marshalled edited his material in some way, just like any of the other scriptural writers. I very much doubt it was all written down sequentially in one go or as if he were simply making notes of something he had 'seen'.
Even if we understand the Letters to the Seven Churches to be some form of direct dictation from the Risen Christ, there is nothing in the text to suggest that we are dealing with predictions about seven distinct 'ages' of the Church.
As for Tommy Ice's accusation that there was some kind of anti pre-millenialist cover-up within the naughty, nasty RC Church, then that's exactly what he's claiming and it's there in the link you provided.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Hermeneutical pareidolia.
You might as well say that any hermeneutical theorising is pareidolia.
No, because some hermeneutics clearly favour this more than others. The question is whether you try to look at the text first and see if it overturns your presuppositions.
That's what I mean by a high view of Scripture, and it's what I mean when I say that a lot of so-called liberals actually have a higher regard for the text than a lot of so-called literalists.
For instance, when I was preparing my teaching sessions on Revelation I wondered what John might mean by the horses with snakes' tails in Rev. 9.
Having grown up with nightmares about them being Russian tanks I admit to not thinking that's what he was referring to, but I simply googled something like "snake tailed fire breathing horse".
I can't remember exactly what the search was, but I do recall that I quickly found the Chimera and more specifically this image.
I didn't know the Chimera was a mythical beast but I'm sure John did. It was very much part of the culture right when and where he was writing Revelation. There's no doubt in my mind that he borrowed this imagery, or something very like it, to describe what he saw in his vision.
This respects both the text and the context, and avoids all the madness to be seen in the diagrams on, say this page, which is as good an example of hermeneutical pareidolia as you could hope for.
The point of this anecdote being that I took what the text said and looked in as open a way as possible for an explanation, rather than start with the question "now, what piece of Tribulation war machinery might John be describing"?
Yes it's a hermeneutic, but I think it's more likely to prevent me simply from seeing in the text what I hope to find there.
[x-post]
[ 15. December 2016, 07:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
So let me get this straight, Jamat. This was discovered by Derby in the nineteenth century, yet you can see it in the Scripture, and it's the plain meaning, yet no-one noticed it for 1800 years prior to Darby?
What a load of cobblers.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So let me get this straight, Jamat. This was discovered by Derby in the nineteenth century, yet you can see it in the Scripture, and it's the plain meaning, yet no-one noticed it for 1800 years prior to Darby?
What a load of cobblers.
Depends what you mean by 'this' Karl.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
It doesn't mean he necessarily 'saw' locust-like hybrid human/scorpion creatures that are one day going to descend to earth.
Now, I'm not suggesting John was telling porkies or 'making things up' as it were, but neither do I think he simply wrote things down in a reportage sense.
That's not how apocalyptic literature works, that's not how the scriptures work.
Seems to be a bit of dissonance here. He did not see what he said he saw but he is not telling porkies
And
Apocalyptic is a blanket statement for "we do not have to take it seriously."
Sorry Gamaliel doesn't work for me. As for writing it down in one hit, whoever suggested that. John probably dictated it to a scribe over time.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
The question is whether you try to look at the text first and see if it overturns your presuppositions
Well, I do not know if John was using an image of the chimera with which he was familiar. Perhaps so. That comes down to opinion as does your assertion that dispensationalism is a hermeneutic that imposes itself on the text, something other hermeneutics, namely yours, do not do. Without going over old ground, that is pure speculation. All hermeneutics begin with scripture. Obviously we have to ask for the Holy Spirit to guide us as a library of writings by that many authors and over that time period is not going to be a linear narrative in any sense.
You could say the whole concept of a systematic theology is flawed on the very basis of your accusation against dispensationalism (how dare you seek a unified revelation in a random collection of ancient books and why do you leave some out and include others?)
The pages you cite by the way, are OTT but as I mentioned the fact of extremist views does not falsify anything.
Interestingly, what I have have discovered about Darby would suggest he did carefully reexamine scripture during a time of convalescence and came to his conclusions on that basis. There is no evidence I found to suggest he was influenced by Margaret McDonald or the Irvingites with. Anyhow, it seems this discussion is at a natural end now so that really is it from me.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Apocalyptic is a blanket statement for "we do not have to take it seriously."
Who here is not taking Revelation "seriously"? No one that I can identify. It seems to me that failure to take account of the kind of writing that Revelation is, and failure to ask whether some or all of it should be understood literally or symbolically, is failure to take Revelation seriously.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You misunderstand what I am getting at. Not taking it in as literal a way as you do doesn't mean I don't take it seriously.
Also, I didn't say that John didn't have a vision or didn't 'see' anything.
I'd still take it seriously even if he didn't and it was a piece of pious fiction.
However, I'm not suggesting it is, in the way that Jonah and Esther might be spiritual 'novels' on one level - although possibly with real life, historical characters and based to some extent on historic events.
I'm not suggesting that John wrote it as a work of spiritual fiction in the way that Bunyan wrote The Pilgrim's Progress or Milton wrote Paradise Lost.
But it is still apocalyptic literature and bears the hall-marks of that and there are obvious signs of 'composition' if you like, in the way it's layered and where symbols and imagery are paralleled or compared and contrasted.
So it's not like a reporter filing copy from a sports match or crime scene.
This does not in any way obviate the supernatural or visionary elements.
I don't see why it should. Nor that it comes down to a binary choice as to whether he was telling porkies or recording things in a literal kind of way.
It's analogous to a dream, I would suggest. Insofar that in dreams our subconscious mind deploys metaphor and symbolism in a way that goes beyond our capacity to find words or articulate what we 'see'.
So, as John was steeped in OT imagery, from Daniel and so on, it's hardly surprising that it comes into his vision. That was the raw material God the Holy Spirit worked with, if you like.
So, yes, I do believe that John had a vision, or rather a series of visions. I know you don't subscribe to a dictation model, so I'm not laying that to your charge.
I'm simply suggesting that there was more to the process than John summoning a scribe and saying, 'Guess what? I had a funny dream last night ... Get this down will you before I forget the gist of it ...'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The Wikipedia article (can't post link as there are parentheses in it) does not bear out the contention that Anderson was a founder of Scotland Yard - rather it suggests that it was well established by the time Anderson was appointed there. It also suggests to me that his career after his early successes in the campaigns against Fenians was rather less than successful. Usual disclaimers.
Yes I am not sure of this. Wikipedia may be correct. I heard that in a sermon.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Apocalyptic is a blanket statement for "we do not have to take it seriously."
Who here is not taking Revelation "seriously"? No one that I can identify. It seems to me that failure to take account of the kind of writing that Revelation is, and failure to ask whether some or all of it should be understood literally or symbolically, is failure to take Revelation seriously.
Nick, I have never denied the type of writing this is,symbols figures and all. What I am not convinced about is whether Gamaliel's or Eytychus' approach is the best way to handle it.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You could say the whole concept of a systematic theology is flawed on the very basis of your accusation against dispensationalism (how dare you seek a unified revelation in a random collection of ancient books and why do you leave some out and include others?)
Indeed. I cordially dislike systematic theologies. God left us the Scriptures, not a systematic theology, which bear witness to his Son, through the illuminating work of the Spirit. You don't need a systematic theology to learn that.
quote:
Interestingly, what I have have discovered about Darby would suggest he did carefully reexamine scripture during a time of convalescence and came to his conclusions on that basis. There is no evidence I found to suggest he was influenced by Margaret McDonald or the Irvingites
I have on my desk an English translation, privately commissionned as I understand it by the UK Exclusive Brethren, of a book in Italian by Massimo Introvigne and Domenico Maselli. Introvigne is a leading sociologist of religion. The manuscript was revised in translation by Timothy Stunt who is probably one of the world's leading living authorities on the Brethren. I corresponded with both Introvigne and Stunt while working on the English translation.
After tracing the connections between Lacunza, Irving, and Darby, the book states quote:
Newton and Darby emphasised the importance of studying the book of Revelation, something they themselves had undertaken in the wake of the studies by Lacunza and Irving. The latter studies held that apart from the opening chapters, Revelation announced events which were to take place in the near future and which would be related to the manifestation of the Kingdom of God. Darby and Irving attempted to harmonise this view with several passages of Scripture which hinted at a two-stage return of Christ...
For these scholars there is absolutely no doubt about the pedigree of Darby's ideas.
In discussing the influence of Lacunza, a footnote also adds: quote:
On the origins of the millenarian interpretation in Great Britain in the 19th century and the process which led to the founding of the Plymouth Brethren, see Harold Hamlyn Rowdon, The Origins of the Brethren, 1825-1850, Pickering and Inglis, London, 1967, pp. 12-17
[ 15. December 2016, 20:37: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Nick, I have never denied the type of writing this is,symbols figures and all. What I am not convinced about is whether Gamaliel's or Eytychus' approach is the best way to handle it.
And that's perfectly fine if you're not convinced that their approach is the best way to handle it.
But what you said that I was responding to was: "Apocalyptic is a blanket statement for 'we do not have to take it seriously.'" The clear implication there is that those who approach Revelation as a particular genre—apocalyptic writings—and who are saying something along the lines of "it should/shouldn't be read this or that way because it's apocalyptic" are not taking Revelation seriously, and are using "apocalyptic" as their excuse for doing so. And I think that blanket statement is both dismissive and wrong.
I'll grant that it may be true for some people—those who might say that Revelation is just impossible to understand because it's apocalyptic, so never mind it. But I don't think Eutychus, Gamaliel, or anyone else in this thread has done that.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, Nick. I'm certainly not saying that Revelation is so obscure as to be incomprehensible.
But it is easy to get the wrong end if the stick with it. Which is why the Eastern Churches were tardy in accepting it into the canon. They knew very well that people could go off onto tangents with fanciful interpretations.
Interestingly, I had lunch with an Orthodox priest today and we discussed their approach to Revelation. Interesting. They see it as speaking of the heavenly banquet - of the Lamb upon the throne and how eucharistic worship on earth combines in some mysterious way with worship in heaven ...
As an aside, one of the observations he made was about the image in scripture that recurs of taking the scroll and eating it ... Not reading it out or sharing the contents with your pals, but eating it, ingesting it ...
A hint of eucharistic theology there, if course ...
One could argue that's a bit extravagant but as a figure or image, I can see the point and make that kind of connection - and again, that's something that apocalyptic literature with its allusiveness, allows us to do.
However we understand it, Revelation is a revelation of Jesus Christ.' It is a revelation of our risen and glorified Saviour Jesus Christ, the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the earth and must reign until his enemies are made a footstool for his feet.
That's the point of it. It's not about working out times and epochs. It's not about reading predictive elements into the Letters to the Seven Churches in order to make them fit some putative schema.
It's about Christ.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Nick, I have never denied the type of writing this is,symbols figures and all. What I am not convinced about is whether Gamaliel's or Eytychus' approach is the best way to handle it.
And that's perfectly fine if you're not convinced that their approach is the best way to handle it.
But what you said that I was responding to was: "Apocalyptic is a blanket statement for 'we do not have to take it seriously.'" The clear implication there is that those who approach Revelation as a particular genre—apocalyptic writings—and who are saying something along the lines of "it should/shouldn't be read this or that way because it's apocalyptic" are not taking Revelation seriously, and are using "apocalyptic" as their excuse for doing so. And I think that blanket statement is both dismissive and wrong.
I'll grant that it may be true for some people—those who might say that Revelation is just impossible to understand because it's apocalyptic, so never mind it. But I don't think Eutychus, Gamaliel, or anyone else in this thread has done that.
well that ws not my intention. The goal was to get Gamaliel in particular to define what he meant with more precision. He has done so to some extent though and I still disagree with him but there you go, who is surprised?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Returning to my point about Dispensationalism and the 'two-stage Second Coming' being based on superficially plausible but ultimately mistaken assumptions similar to the assumptions behind Ptolemaic cosmology....
I don't think Jamat has yet answered my point that the key assumption in generating the 'two-stage Second Coming' business was the idea, which started with Irving but which Darby & Co never seem to have challeged, that
living in expectation of the Return of Jesus meant not only being aware of that possibility and watching the 'signs of the times', but that it actually meant a permanent state of belief that the Return might literally be 'any second now'.
And, as I pointed out, in the fevered expectation created by Irving, that state of belief 'had to be' maintained even if they found things in Scripture itself that should have made them think twice. For example Paul's rather clear point that the Return was not to be expected till after the man of lawlessness was revealed, with a very clear implication that even if not the original readers, Christians on earth at the time would see that some time BEFORE being caught up to meet Jesus at his return.
By ignoring the example and underlying principle that Paul stated there - Paul's 'hermeneutic'? - the 19thC 'prophetic students' laid themselves open to an interpretative problem which gave them massive difficulty but which was no more 'real' in Scriptural terms than the anomalies which gave rise to the piling of epicycles on epicycles to maintain the Ptolemaic system.
Deeply emotionally committed to the ideas of an 'any moment now' Return and the Millennial Kingdom to follow, When they found 'awkward' prophecies that had not yet been fulfilled, but which didn't fit into the Millennial Kingdom either, they felt there 'must be' an understanding which found room for those prophecies after the Return but necessarily before the institution of the Millennium.
They were not emotionally willing - and so could not take the rational step implied by Paul's hermeneutic - to consider the possibility that such unfulfilled prophecy meant the Return was 'not yet' but might be some years away. And it was this unreal anomaly, this actually artificial paradox, that generated the 'need' for the whole idea of a 'Post-Rapture' Tribulation period, NOT because Scripture requires it, but because their own assumption of a necessarily any-moment-now Return required it.
The other 'return' - of Israel to the Land - provides an interesting test-case. I'm not absolutely sure that Scripture does require that return; but as I see it, the point back in the 1800s should have been that "If that prophecy must be fulfilled and clearly hasn't been, then the Return of Jesus is 'not yet'".
The 19thC prophetic students, had you spoken to them, would simply not have believed what has actually happened - that about 150 years on from their interpretation, not only has Jesus NOT returned, but the Israelites are back in their land decades before a yet-to-occur 'Rapture'!!
No, to them, the return of Israel would 'have to be' after the 'Rapture' and to some extent caused by it, as part of the Tribulation events. History has shown them spectacularly wrong - but they still seem unable to revise their faulty assumptions and their anti-Pauline hermeneutic....
I'll come back tomorrow (actually 'much later today' now!) to deal with the ideas of 'Dispensations'. But meantime can I suggest that in relation to Israel and the place of the Jews in the scheme of things, it's not just about Revelation - there's a great deal in the Epistle to the Hebrews which seems to me to speak quite forcefully against the Dispensationalist ideas on the subject....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, it's not a surprise that's there's daylight between Jamat and myself on these issues.
I don't tend to do precision on issues like this because I don't think in those terms when it comes to the apocalyptic writings and heck, some of the Gospel accounts are fuzzy and contradictory enough without playing hermeneutical Twister in order to link them all together or awkward attempts to stuff them into a grid.
It's more like an Impressionist painting rather than a draughtsman's drawing.
FWIW my own take is fairly close to that of Steve Langton, Eutychus and Nick Taken. I go with the broad thrust of small t tradition, with some Big T elements overlapping ... And yes, I believe that to be closer to the scriptural accounts than some fervid 19th century over-egged expectation that fails to understand the nature of prophetic and apocalyptic texts and treats them like some kind of neat Meccano set construction and framework for the end of the world.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So let me get this straight, Jamat. This was discovered by Derby in the nineteenth century, yet you can see it in the Scripture, and it's the plain meaning, yet no-one noticed it for 1800 years prior to Darby?
What a load of cobblers.
Depends what you mean by 'this' Karl.
Your entire dispensationist fantasy. But you knew that. It makes a great story; puts me in mind of some Sci-Fi classics (Foundation springs to mind) but as reality? I really can't take it seriously.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So let me get this straight, Jamat. This was discovered by Derby in the nineteenth century, yet you can see it in the Scripture, and it's the plain meaning, yet no-one noticed it for 1800 years prior to Darby?
What a load of cobblers.
Depends what you mean by 'this' Karl.
Your entire dispensationist fantasy. But you knew that. It makes a great story; puts me in mind of some Sci-Fi classics (Foundation springs to mind) but as reality? I really can't take it seriously.
All good Karl, Have been a sci fi fan in my time.
Maybe am one still.
Seasons greetings.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
well that ws not my intention. The goal was to get Gamaliel in particular to define what he meant with more precision. He has done so to some extent though . . .
Got it. Thanks for the clarification, and sorry if I misread.
quote:
. . . and I still disagree with him but there you go, who is surprised?
Ah well, you can't have everything. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Umm.... "Dispensations..."
It seems to me that the 'dispensationalism' thing is a distortion of a sound basic idea - that in his dealings with sinful humanity God progresses.
He organises something to get one point across, or to deal with a particularly problematic situation, and lets it run while the lesson is learned, then he takes things a stage further, with new ideas and provisions.
Much of this progress is slow and regular, but there are also decisive moments of major advance. "Dispensationalists", it seems to me, exaggerate those points of major advance, but at the same time end up 'disconnecting' them a bit, seeing too much of the difference and not enough of the coherent advance.
One of the striking examples of this which seems very relevant to the "Rapture" business is that they make the 'Church Age' over-separate from what came before, and treat it as a parenthesis which can end and things go back as they were before.
NO!! In Jesus, God has 'broken down the wall of partition' between Jew and Gentile, and reunited the human race in faith in Jesus as King of the Jews AND divine King of the world/cosmos/universe. There is no intelligent way to go back from that.
The Church is in continuity with the OT 'congregation' of Israel, and 'Israel' doesn't have a truly separate existence after that; though God deals as graciously as they will allow with those who have rejected the 'new covenant' in Jesus. But He isn't going backwards; the ultimate salvation of 'Israel' will be in union with the Church, in faith in the Christ and his atonement.
Again, the notion of the things after the 'Rapture' depends on a questionable understanding of this process.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, Nick. I'm certainly not saying that Revelation is so obscure as to be incomprehensible.
But it is easy to get the wrong end if the stick with it. Which is why the Eastern Churches were tardy in accepting it into the canon. They knew very well that people could go off onto tangents with fanciful interpretations.
Interestingly, I had lunch with an Orthodox priest today and we discussed their approach to Revelation. Interesting. They see it as speaking of the heavenly banquet - of the Lamb upon the throne and how eucharistic worship on earth combines in some mysterious way with worship in heaven ...
Which is what Madame and I agreed ages ago. We read Revelations for the beauty and poetry of the images, but not as a part of our bible study - far too easy to fall into error. We leave the formal study to those who may well know how to go about it.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think Steve Langton's talking sense and also have some sympathy with the view that we read Revelation for its beauty and poetry, but it doesn't stop there, of course. It's a Revelation of Jesus Christ.
I don't think we should shy away from studying it. Neither do the Orthodox. It's just that they don't read it liturgically in their services, although they base a lot of their liturgical understanding upon it.
Studying it isn't the problem. Studying it appropriately is the issue, taking into account its particular nature as apocalyptic literature.
So far, I'm afraid, to my mind, Jamat has not demonstrated that he understands how we should approach and interpret those kind of scriptures but seems to treat it as if it were a newspaper report. Heck, we don't even treat newspaper reports like that.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Steve Langton: living in expectation of the Return of Jesus meant not only being aware of that possibility and watching the 'signs of the times', but that it actually meant a permanent state of belief that the Return might literally be 'any second now'.
Paul's rather clear point that the Return was not to be expected till after the man of lawlessness was revealed, with a very clear implication that even if not the original readers, Christians on earth at the time would see that some time BEFORE being caught up to meet Jesus at his return.
But Steve if you accept my distinction which you obviously don't, that the term Day of the Lord implies the tribulation or time of God's wrath and that the rapture passage in 1Thes 4:15-17 though contiguous, is not contextually linked to the scripture concerning times and epochs in 1thes 5, then Paul IS speaking of 2 different things. The separating signal here is the Greek "Peri de" or 'now concerning.'
quote:
19thC prophetic students, had you spoken to them, would simply not have believed what has actually happened - that about 150 years on from their interpretation, not only has Jesus NOT returned, but the Israelites are back in their land decades before a yet-to-occur 'Rapture'!!
No, to them, the return of Israel would 'have to be' after the 'Rapture' and to some extent caused by it, as part of the Tribulation events. History has shown them spectacularly wrong - but they still seem unable to revise their faulty assumptions and their anti-Pauline hermeneutic....
Another way to look at this Steve is that they were were spectacularly right! Israel is now a nation. You can be essentially right as to fact but wrong as to detail. Think of how the Jews missed the first coming of Messiah because of preconceptions about how it would or wouldn't happen?
quote:
"Dispensationalists", it seems to me, exaggerate those points of major advance, but at the same time end up 'disconnecting' them a bit, seeing too much of the difference and not enough of the coherent advance.
One of the striking examples of this which seems very relevant to the "Rapture" business is that they make the 'Church Age' over-separate from what came before, and treat it as a parenthesis which can end and things go back as they were before.
NO!! In Jesus, God has 'broken down the wall of partition' between Jew and Gentile, and reunited the human race in faith in Jesus as King of the Jews AND divine King of the world/cosmos/universe. There is no intelligent way to go back from that.
First, I think the scripture clearly shows dispensations. I do not think we over-egg them. God is the same in each one and so is humanity. The difference is that each shows a clear change in the way God handles stuff or relates to man. For instance, it was fine for people to offer sacrifice themselves until the Mosaic system came along, now a priest has that function. After the cross they are redundant as the supreme sacrifice has been made and is accessed continually by faith as Hebrews teaches.
Secondly, Jesus has indeed broken down a wall of partition. This has little do with the point of parenthesis. It is the Jew/gentle access to the father that both now share by faith in Christ. In this age both Jew and gentile are part of Christ's church.
However, the concept of parenthesis in the scripture relates, according to Fruchtenbaum (Jewish Christian) and Robert Anderson (19C author of The Coming Prince), to the times of rebellion of the Jews. These times are very specific in the Bible. For instance during the times of the Judges when Israel backslid, they were given into the hands of enemies like Midian, Moab etc. When they repented and a Judge arose, God gave them victory again, the time of disfavour were parentheses in God's purpose. During them the clock stopped.
The biggest up to the present era was the captivity in Babylon which Jeremiah wrote was to be 70 years of disfavour during which they lost their political autonomy till they repented.
The same pattern is evident in the common era. Daniel talks about the 'times of the Gentiles' foreshadowing Jesus' words in Like that Jerusalem is subject to humiliation till the 'times of the gentiles' be fulfilled.
In keeping with this Paul clearly teaches in Romans 9-11 that Israel is not being treated separately from the church in the present era. But he also states here that they will be restored at some point to their proper place as God's special people.
All this to say that the point where Jesus entered Jerusalem as its king but was not accepted by Israel as that king and subsequently crucified, was the end of the 69th week of Daniel's prophecy.
The 70th week has not begun as no history answering to the events of that week has yet occurred.
The 'parenthesis' is thus the gap between where God deals with Israel directly in blessing and where he does not. Clearly, in this church era or epoch, he is not dealing with them as a nation.
The church though is not an afterthought or a plan B, It is the opportunity for us gentiles to partake of the spiritual blessings of the Jewish covenants. This however does NOT mean we have taken them over. Steve Langton: living in expectation of the Return of Jesus meant not only being aware of that possibility and watching the 'signs of the times', but that it actually meant a permanent state of belief that the Return might literally be 'any second now'. 19thC prophetic students, had you spoken to them, would simply not have believed what has actually happened - that about 150 years on from their interpretation, not only has Jesus NOT returned, but the Israelites are back in their land decades before a yet-to-occur 'Rapture'!! "Dispensationalists", it seems to me, exaggerate those points of major advance, but at the same time end up 'disconnecting' them a bit, seeing too much of the difference and not enough of the coherent advance.
[ 19. December 2016, 00:39: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Apologies, Bolded portion of post above was unintended but missed edit window.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The separating signal here is the Greek "Peri de" or 'now concerning.'
To make your interpretation at this point work you have to make what precedes refer to the first stage of the parousia - and what follows refer to the final stage. The subject of 'peri de' is not directly any "final stage" but "times and dates", and what follows would be irrelevant to the recipients of the letter if it pertained to a time after they had been raptured.
quote:
However, the concept of parenthesis in the scripture relates, according to Fruchtenbaum (Jewish Christian) and Robert Anderson (19C author of The Coming Prince), to the times of rebellion of the Jews.
The problem with this approach is that it is incompatible with seeing the Church as the culmination of God's plan and desire to have for himself one people. The latter view does not require inserting stops and starts in Scripture; it appears to me to be the whole overarching story.
Again, you have not addressed any of the multiple passages in Scripture that point to this.
quote:
In keeping with this Paul clearly teaches in Romans 9-11 that Israel is not being treated separately from the church in the present era. But he also states here that they will be restored at some point to their proper place as God's special people.
He certainly says the former, and indeed this is another example of my contention that God is after one people, not two. But Exactly what in Romans 9-11 do you see saying the latter? Don't you find it odd that Paul doesn't, for instance, reiterate the promises about the Land here?
quote:
All this to say that the point where Jesus entered Jerusalem as its king but was not accepted by Israel
I think one of the big questions dividing us here is whether, when Jesus began his ministry, he made as it were a genuine offer to the Jews to be their Messiah on the basis of existing covenants - and only went over to "plan B" of salvation for the Gentiles when the Jews rejected him as such.
This seems to be an important concept in dispensationalism.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jamat;
quote:
In keeping with this Paul clearly teaches in Romans 9-11 that Israel is not being treated separately from the church in the present era. But he also states here that they will be restored at some point to their proper place as God's special people.
NO, emphatically! Look back to Paul's imagery of the olive tree. The unbelieving Jews have been 'broken off' and Gentiles 'grafted in' to the same tree, and Paul's wording if anything emphasises that neither group is a 'special people' compared to the other.
The unbelieving Jews may, by the grace of God, come to believe, and be 'grafted back into their own olive tree' - but NOT to be "God's special people" in contrast to the Gentiles, simply to be part of the same tree in which Jews and Gentiles are alike "God's special people", equal heirs of the promises in contrast to unbelievers.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Hey! I said that too! More than once! ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Sorry Eutychus - I wasn't claiming priority on the comment or anything, just answering Jamat's rejoinder to me... as again this;
by Jamat;
quote:
Another way to look at this Steve is that they were were spectacularly right! Israel is now a nation. You can be essentially right as to fact but wrong as to detail. Think of how the Jews missed the first coming of Messiah because of preconceptions about how it would or wouldn't happen?
No, they were still spectacularly wrong. "Israel is now a nation" may or may not be prophesied; but the difference here is more about the "when" and certain assumptions about that "when" which appear to distort the prophecies.
Me, I'd be cautious about whether the return of Israel is actually prophesied - even now it's happened I'm not sure about it! But I would always have said that Jesus' return is clearly "The End" to be followed by the Judgement and the new heaven and the new earth in which all promises receive eternal fulfilment greater than human imagining; thus IF the return of Israel were clearly prophesied, I would have applied to it Paul's principle relating to the "Man of Lawlessness" ... if that must yet be, then "The End" is not yet!
Whereas in the scheme derived from Darby, the conclusion reached - and clearly wrongly - was that since their basic scheme demanded an 'any minute now' Return of Jesus, the return of Israel 'had to be' after the Rapture in this unnecessary post-Rapture period artificially created to be a home for such prophecy.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Eutuychus: "times and dates", and what follows would be irrelevant to the recipients of the letter if it pertained to a time after they had been raptured.
But the relevance is to all and particularly to those who might ANTICIPATE getting raptured. It is reassuring to them that the day of the Lord is something THEY need not anticipate since THEY are not appointed to God's wrath as the unbelieving world is.
Thank you for the acknowledgement of the 'Peri de' point which I, not being a linguist like yourself, got from Fruchtenbaum.
quote:
The problem with this approach is that it is incompatible with seeing the Church as the culmination of God's plan and desire
Sir Robert Anderson elucidates this in Ch 12 of the Coming Prince. It is too long to quote and I think you'd be lucky to find a copy but as a taster he says:
"The cross has levelled all distinctions ...how then if there IS no difference, can God give blessing on a principle that implies there IS a difference...the question is of immense importance"
He then proceeds to state:
"although grace stoops to the gentile, it does not confirm him in his position of a gentile but lifts him out of it and denationalises him for in the church of this dispensation there is neither Jew nor gentile Gal 3:28. Judah's promises on the contrary, imply that blessing will reach the Jew as a Jew not only recognising his national position but confirming him in it"
What he says in other words is that the greater category is the covenants of Israel WHICH THE GENTILE CHURCH NOW PARTAKES OF. However, It is obviously best to do ones own reading. It turns ISTM on the basis on which God's covenant people is founded. Prasch says, for instance, that the church has no covenant. It participates in Jewish ones.
quote:
my contention that God is after one people, not two. But Exactly what in Romans 9-11 do you see saying the latter? Don't you find it odd that Paul doesn't, for instance, reiterate the promises about the Land here?
No because the land is the subject of the covenants. It is inclusive of them. When he mentions the covenants one may infer he includes all the land promises.
quote:
one of the big questions dividing us here is whether, when Jesus began his ministry, he made as it were a genuine offer to the Jews to be their Messiah on the basis of existing covenants - and only went over to "plan B" of salvation for the Gentiles when the Jews rejected him as such.
I think the clearest indication of it is when he changed from preaching that the Kingdom was at hand, to veiling his teaching in parables after Matt 12 when they essentially said that he was demonised. This was the sin against the Holy Ghost and it was after that that his emphasis markedly changed. It was as if the offer of the kingdom was now withdrawn. (My source on this is Fruchtenbaum)
I do not see this as a plan B in that he was taken by surprise as it was all signalled in prophecy long before,
quote:
Steve Langton: The unbelieving Jews have been 'broken off' and Gentiles 'grafted in' to the same tree, and Paul's wording if anything emphasises that neither group is a 'special people' compared to the other.
I think this is answered above Steve. The branches were broken off but the root remained intact as it were. The covenants were and ARE Jewish covenants. The church has not in Paul's teaching replaced Israel but participated in Israel's covenants.
quote:
No, they were still spectacularly wrong. "Israel is now a nation" may or may not be prophesied; but the difference here is more about the "when"
I disagree. One can be right as to fact and wrong as to timing. Anderson clearly saw the need for national Israel's restoration. He states this categorically in the coming Prince, at a time when the Ottoman empire was still intact. He was right, spectacularly so as to fact, as history has proven. Some of his interpretive comments are incorrect but he saw the regathering as necessary so that prophecy could be fulfilled. He writes in ch 7
"..though eighteen centuries have elapsed, the restoration of the Jews seems still but a chimera of sanguine fanatics.."
(remember he was a Victorian policeman.)
quote:
Me, I'd be cautious about whether the return of Israel is actually prophesied - even now it's happened I'm not sure about it! But I would always have said that Jesus' return is clearly "The End" to be followed by the Judgement and the new heaven and the new earth in which all promises receive eternal fulfilment greater than human imagining; thus IF the return of Israel were clearly prophesied, I would have applied to it Paul's principle relating to the "Man of Lawlessness" ... if that must yet be, then "The End" is not yet!
This is assuming that the second coming is NOT a 2 act drama as I think scripture shows. If I am right then Christians will witness the end of the man of lawlessness from a heavenly vantage point.
quote:
Gamaliel: in the scheme derived from Darby, the conclusion reached - and clearly wrongly - was that since their basic scheme demanded an 'any minute now' Return of Jesus, the return of Israel 'had to be' after the Rapture in this unnecessary post-Rapture period artificially created to be a home for such prophecy.
This artificiality is continually asserted. It is not so. Look at the many scriptures that denote the second coming and judge for yourself if there is a consistent harmonious picture. It simply is not the case. There are clearly different irreconcilable scenarios. eg in Matt 24. Explain them if you can. You already know how I do.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is reassuring to them that the day of the Lord is something THEY need not anticipate since THEY are not appointed to God's wrath as the unbelieving world is.
The text does not say anything about them not needing to anticipate.
quote:
Thank you for the acknowledgement of the 'Peri de' point
I don't know what you think I've acknowledged. It may mark a change of subject, but there is nothing in the text to say the change of subject is from stage one of the parousia to stage two.
quote:
quote:
"although grace stoops to the gentile, it does not confirm him in his position of a gentile but lifts him out of it and denationalises him for in the church of this dispensation there is neither Jew nor gentile Gal 3:28. Judah's promises on the contrary, imply that blessing will reach the Jew as a Jew not only recognising his national position but confirming him in it"
And this is what I have against dispensationalism. The eschatalogical vision of Revelation sees one people of God united by the New Covenant, of which the Church is the fullest expression, an inclusive prospect which as far as I can see is hinted at from Genesis onwards.
quote:
The branches were broken off but the root remained intact as it were.
The question is what Paul has in mind as the root. The argument that the root consists of the covenants to Israel runs counter to the entire argument of the rest of Romans, which is that believers ever since Abraham have been justified by grace through faith, the point of Rom 4 being that this was the case before there was even the covenant of circumcision. According to Paul himself the root appears to be justification by faith. quote:
The covenants were and ARE Jewish covenants.
Keep on down that line and pretty soon you will have no need for the work of Christ at all: "if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." (Gal 2:21) "if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law." (Gal 3:21) quote:
Look at the many scriptures that denote the second coming and judge for yourself if there is a consistent harmonious picture. It simply is not the case. There are clearly different irreconcilable scenarios.
As I have asked before, why this overwhelming need to harmonise everything?
Only the most contrived efforts can make the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection harmonise perfectly. Does that lead you to believe there was a multiple-stage resurrection?
And the fact is that your "harmonisation" is not actually harmonisation, because to achieve harmonisation it adds speculative extra-biblical pieces.
[ 20. December 2016, 05:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
don't know what you think I've acknowledged. It may mark a change of subject, but there is nothing in the text to say the change of subject is from stage one of the parousia to stage two.
I don't think it shows stage 2 of the parousia, It shows the time of the tribulation. Jesus returns as Judge when this is at its climax, the Jewish remnant have at last acknowledged their true Messiah (see Zechariah 12 and 13 "they shall look on him whom they pierced")and he returns to rescue them after two thirds of the nation have perished. I think by the term Day of the Lord, Paul is signifying that this is the final 42 months of the 70th week of Daniel. Jesus returns at the climax of the destruction as he says in Matt 24, if those days were not shortened no one would survive. Incidentally, I am not suggesting this is imminent. It could be many years, just that the scenario of Armageddon needs Israel in their land and we do see that since 1948.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
don't know what you think I've acknowledged. It may mark a change of subject, but there is nothing in the text to say the change of subject is from stage one of the parousia to stage two.
I don't think it shows stage 2 of the parousia, It shows the time of the tribulation.
My point is that none of this can be concluded from "peri de".
As I understand it, "peri de" means "now, with respect to...". It does not mean "and now we turn to look at what happens next".
The immediate subject in the text is the general one of "dates and times", and as I understand it the issue to which Paul turns by using this phrase is one of not being hung up on dates and times.
That is all.
You cannot infer a series of chronologically distinct events merely from the phrase "peri de".
[ 20. December 2016, 07:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
keep on down that line and pretty soon you will have no need for the work of Christ at all: "if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." (Gal 2:21) "if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law." (Gal 3:21)
The covenants of Israel are not the law. They are the contracts God made first with Abraham Isaac and Jacob primarily. The point here is that as father of faith, Abraham is the key figure and of course we gentile Christians are faith sons and daughters of Abraham through our faith in Christ. I certainly do not believe we must all become Jews and keep the Mosaic law. It was only an indicator of Gods righteousness and our sinfulness. Paul specifically asks what is the benefit of being Jewish and answers, much and in every way because theirs were the covenants by which he meant that pre Christ, one had to be Jewish to be acceptable to God, post the cross, the spiritual blessings of those covenants are open to us gentiles but they do remain Jewish covenants which is the point Anderson implies. The issue is who is joined to whom. The answer is that we are joined to God via the covenants. In that sense they are the rootstock of God's people and we are the fruit from being grafted in.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
I quote:
you cannot infer a series of chronologically distinct events merely from the phrase "peri de"
Agreed. I am suggesting only that it is a contrastive. Paul from discussing that they need not panic about their loved ones who have died in the Lord, 1thes4 15-17, now goes on to mention times and seasons, a different subject 1thes 5:1-5. This is really further reassurance as someone had obviously been telling them that the day of the Lord had already come.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
As I have asked before, why this overwhelming need to harmonise everything?
Only the most contrived efforts can make the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection harmonise perfectly. Does that lead you to believe there was a multiple-stage resurrection?
And the fact is that your "harmonisation" is not actually harmonisation, because to achieve harmonisation it adds speculative extra-biblical pieces
Well it either makes some coherent logical sense or you cannot call it a revelation. If we have to live with dissonance then tell me why we refuse to do this in our normal lives. To me, there are no extra biblical speculations it is a case of two scenarios of the second coming. One seems to be a coming for his own the other seems to be a coming as an avenging warrior. Which is it? How is it both?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I quote:
you cannot infer a series of chronologically distinct events merely from the phrase "peri de"
Agreed. I am suggesting only that it is a contrastive. Paul from discussing that they need not panic about their loved ones who have died in the Lord, 1thes4 15-17, now goes on to mention times and seasons, a different subject 1thes 5:1-5. This is really further reassurance as someone had obviously been telling them that the day of the Lord had already come.
In which case it offers no prima facie evidence at all of either a two-stage rapture or a post-rapture tribulation.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well it either makes some coherent logical sense or you cannot call it a revelation.
I think the overall revelation makes some coherent logical sense, but that this is not the same thing as needing every detail of that revelation to be harmonised (my mum used to worry about one or two items of Temple cutlery having been lost between, as I recall, Numbers and Ezra, if you read the lists...).
At the risk of straying into DH territory again, this is a lot easier if you take the Scripture as inspired, but consisting of human attempts to get a handle on what God is doing, rather than divine dictation perfectly correct in every detail.
(Which I think is more respectful of Scripture and inspiration, not less). quote:
If we have to live with dissonance then tell me why we refuse to do this in our normal lives.
I'm not sure we do refuse to do this. Life is full of paradoxes. The whole point is that it isn't a neat system and that's why an overly-detailed neat system is the wrong way to understand it. quote:
To me, there are no extra biblical speculations it is a case of two scenarios of the second coming. One seems to be a coming for his own the other seems to be a coming as an avenging warrior. Which is it? How is it both?
Already "two scenarios" is a lot more acceptabe than "two chronological stages". Call them "two perspectives" (on what might be a single event, like the Resurrection, for which we have four perspectives) and your dissonance is resolved.
I see no incompatibility between Christ coming to enact judgement on the unbeliever and to take his Church to be with him in a single eschatalogical event.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The point here is that as father of faith, Abraham is the key figure and of course we gentile Christians are faith sons and daughters of Abraham through our faith in Christ
The mistake here is "gentile". The whole point of Romans 4 is that when God called Abraham, he was in effect a gentile himself; there was no covenant of circumcision and no such thing as a Jew.
God certainly went on to have a specific plan for the Jews, but at least by the epistles Paul has come to understand this plan as secondary to his plan for all nations, not the other way round.
Of course this is not an easy conundrum to resolve, still less for a Jew, and you can feel Paul struggling with it himself in Romans 9-11, but to my mind there can be no question about which way round it was resolved not only by him but by the New Testament Church, not only in practice (believing Jews as a subset of the Church, see in particular Acts 15) but also in theology (believing Jews as a subset of God's unique people, depicted as his city/bride in Revelation at the end of all things - with the foundations of the city including both the 12 apostles and the 12 tribes)
quote:
pre Christ, one had to be Jewish to be acceptable to God
That is nonsense.
You are implying that at one time, righteousness could come by the law. As I say, Abraham wasn't acceptable on the grounds of his Jewishness, and the OT is festooned with non-Jews who were acceptable to God. The idea of a people of faith as opposed to an ethnic people runs right through the Bible.
Certainly there were (potentially) benefits to being Jewish and having direct access to all that legacy, but as Paul goes on to say, it didn't do them much good because "their zeal was not after knowledge". quote:
The answer is that we are joined to God via the covenants.
Where do you get that from in the Bible? quote:
In that sense they are the rootstock of God's people and we are the fruit from being grafted in.
Again, you are going to have to argue that explicitly verse by verse from Romans 11 for me. I don't think you can.
Paul does not say exactly what the "rootstock" is (remember, this is just an illustration, and as so often in Paul, illustrations are not totally consistent...) but I contend, per Rom 4, it is the community of those justified by faith.
What is beyond doubt is that there is ONE olive tree, not TWO.
If you think the olive tree is the Jewish people in this illustration, you are into all sorts of problems.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
ISTM that what we're seeing here is the development of the idea from a tribal God, who's only on the lookup for his own people, and may be actively hostile to others (in other words, embodying the attitude of the tribe) and a universal God who is creator and Lord of all. The gods of other nations go from being rival gods to gods who are much weaker (my God's bigger than your god!) to being not gods at all - effectively demonised.
The place of the Jews in this therefore changes. At the beginning they're the only people who matter - how else could you have the Joshua genocide narratives if you considered the Canaanites as people rather than Enemies Of My Tribe? Then they become a chosen people amongst other peoples who are also created by God but don't know it or know God. Ultimate the idea that one group is by virtue of their ethnicity somehow superior or special is one that has to fall; from our viewpoint it's basically racism and it's surprising to me that there are still Christians in this day and age who want any truck with it. This is my understanding of John the Baptists ranting about children of Abraham and God being able to turn rocks into children for Abraham. It doesn't matter. No-one is special; no-one gets special dispensation.
At least, that's how I see it.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't remember John the Baptist 'ranting' about that ... ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Meanwhile, whilst I can understand Jamat's argument and his concern to 'make sense' and reconcile things - and indeed to find scope and place for the Jewish people who have so often been side-lined and persecuted during the 'dispensation' of Christendom (if we can put it that way) - the 'times of the Gentiles' - I'm not convinced it resolves anything.
All it does is beg further questions.
For instance, not all Jewish Christians understand these things in a dispensationalist/pre-millenial way. You'd assume, from Jamat's line of reasoning, that they might be tempted to do so because it would be in their interests to do so ...
But they don't.
That's just one of several anomalies.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't remember John the Baptist 'ranting' about that ...
Well, you weren't there ... nor was I!!! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ha ha ... I had anticipated that some wag might say that ...
But you know what I mean.
If we're going to post in Kerygmania then at least we should check our references ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
I see no incompatibility between Christ coming to enact judgement on the unbeliever and to take his Church to be with him in a single eschatalogical event.
Agreed.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Had a Splurge on
Shipmate
# 14140
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't remember John the Baptist 'ranting' about that ...
Luke 3:7-9
--------------------
"But to live outside the law, you must be honest" R.A. Zimmerman
Posts: 224 | From: What used to be Berkshire | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, got you, I'd forgotten about the stones reference in that quote.
Thanks.refd
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
That's the thing about us faithless Christian Agnostics - we tend to know our Bibles quite well. That's how we ended up Agnostic. Too often we've read it and said "Well I don't know about that!"
[ 20. December 2016, 21:04: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
