homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Kerygmania   » Daniel 9:24-27 (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Daniel 9:24-27
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Deep, deep down in Dead Horses, Jamat invited me to consider this particular passage in Daniel and to answer the following questions:

'Is it predictive of Christ? Is it totally fulfilled or is there a future unfulfilled part? Who is the prince who is to come? Who are the ‘people’ of Daniel?'

The context was a discussion of how 'prophecy' works in the scriptures, whether it is predictive or whether it's a case that subsequent generations (notably the early Christians) interpreted and applied writings originally addressed to specific situations in Israel's history in a Messianic way in relation to Christ.

In this thread I invite Shipmates to give their answers to Jamat's questions. That way, we can all see (he foretells, hopefully! [Biased] ) how wide a range of interpretations there are.

To kick off, here's my take:

Firstly, an obvious place to start is by saying that I'm very aware of how these verses are understood and interpreted among various 'tribes' within evangelicalism, the tradition I probably know best.

Secondly, I'll readily acknowledge never being entirely convinced of the elaborate schemas devised to explain what the 'seventy sevens' and so forth stand for - nor the way the 'sealing up of vision and prophecy' (v.24) was customarily applied in highly conservative circles.

But that is to step outside of Jamat's original question.

'Is it predictive of Christ?'
Yes, I'd say so as the early Church seems to have intepreted it that way. Does that mean that it's original application was as a prophecy of Christ?

No, I don't think so. Rather, I'd suggest it had contemporary relevance and application whenever it was written (late date, early date, take your pick). Subsequently, it helped the development of Jewish ideas of a coming Messiah which the early Christians then 'recognised' and applied to Christ.

So if it is predictive, it is not predictive in a 'mechanical' sense ... if that makes sense.

It's predictive in the sense of being discerned to be so by later readers.

Is prophecy, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder? I'm still working on that one ...

[Biased]

Jamat's second question: 'Is it totally fulfilled or is there a future unfulfilled part?'

Again, I am very aware of how these verses and references/echoes of them in the Gospels are understood within conversative evangelical circles and within Dispensationalism in particular.

My cop out answer would be, 'Who knows? Wait and see ...'

A more considered answer would be, 'I can see why people interpret these as having some kind of future fulfilment as there appears to be some kind of future loose-ends or foretelling going on in the Gospels, using these or similar tropes.'

But again, there are other ways of understanding this. People have applied them to the Destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 of course. There are other ways to interpret and understand them too.

That's the nature of prophecy and the nature of apocalyptic writings.

We can interpret and apply them to a wide variety of things. There are references to the destruction of Jerusalem - to an end of sacrifice and offering. This has happened several times - with the defilement of the Second Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes, the Roman destruction of the Temple in AD 70, the exiles and devastation caused by Hadrian ...

Likewise, 'the abomination that causes desolation' is capable of being understood in various ways.

Some see it as a reference to the defilement of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes which sparked the Maccabean revolt. Some see it as the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (whether foretold by Christ or redacted by Gospel writers after the event). Some see it as having some future fulfilment.

There's even a school of thought I've come across recently that suggests that when Christ used it he was applying it to his own death - certainly an abomination that caused desolation in one sense.

So it can be applied to a number of possibilities. All carry some weight.

My own 'take' would be that it's most likely to be a reference to the defilement of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes and that it became a by-word for sacriligious or outrageous acts/persecution by Gentiles etc etc ...

Am I looking for some future fulfilment in terms of events in Jerusalem? No, but given the history of religious violence in the region then there are all sorts of things that could happen which people could interpret as fulfilment of these verses.

Do I attempt to fit this and other references into some kind of elaborate eschatological schema?

No, I don't and I am highly suspicious of any movements or schools of thought that do.

Jamat's third question 'Who is the prince who is to come?'

Again, there could be all kinds of candidates for that if we take this as some kind of predictive prophecy. I'm not prepared to speculate. It's a waste of time.

I don't 'ignore' or overlook it, but I am happy to leave it as a reference to events involving the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple - and that's happened several times.

Jamat's fourth question, 'Who are the "people" of Daniel.'

I presume that Jamat is referring to the 'many' of Daniel 9:27 (NKJV), rather than the 'people of the prince who is to come' of verse 26.

Well, the obvious inference is that Daniel is referring to his own people, the Jews or those among them who accept the covenant or treaty mentioned in verse 27. Again, there would be a number of ways to interpret that - by relating it to historical events or making it 'fit' some known occurence, or else (as Jamat presumably does) by projecting it into the future for some ultimate fulfilment according to his particular eschatological schema.

I'm not inclined to follow him down that route.

Nor do I 'require' there to be clear-cut and dried answers to these questions.

I am happy to live with a degree of ambiguity and mystery.

My faith doesn't stand or fall by there 'having' to be some neat tying up of loose-ends.

I've heard plenty of sermons and read plenty of explanations, none of which sound entirely convincing. It's a red-herring to expect these things to dove-tail neatly as some kind of seamless schema.

That's not how these things work.

--------------------
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
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was in a Bible study once where someone said that prophecies can be fulfilled more than once. The fact that a certain past event appears to fulfill a certain prophecy does not mean that prophecy cannot be fulfilled again.

I'm passing this along as an interesting idea. I'm one of those people who is not all that interested in prophecy, except as a general indication of God's interest and care for us.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It is interesting, Moo, but I suspect it simply underlines a point I was trying to make about it being in the nature of prophetic/apocalyptic writings to be sufficiently elastic to be applied to all manner of things/circumstances.

So, for instance, the 'abomination that causes desolation' is so flexible a term that it could be applied to anything the Jews considered sacrilegious - be it a statue of a ruler and the sacrifice of pigs in the Temple; the marching standards of Roman legions placed near or inside the Holy Holies; the death of Christ even ...

To apply it to a literal future time of Temple offering and sacrifice, the Anti-Christ or Man of Sin etc etc can result in the development of the kind of overly literal schemas I've been talking about ... requiring the literal re-establishment of the Temple and the Jewish sacrificial system etc. All of which enters the realm of pure speculation.

--------------------
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
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here is Chapter 9 of Daniel. I linked the entire chapter for context.

--------------------
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
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think I can accept predictive prophecy in the way Jamat understands it, but I'd like to think my objection is based on the Bible and the nature of Christianity.

The problem ISTM is that predictive prophecy leads to a variant on the grandfather paradox. If it's prophesied that something bad will happen, and you believe the prophecy, then you will take steps to make sure it doesn't. If you succeed, then the future foreseen by the prophet no longer exists and there is nothing for him to foresee.

Now AIUI this was not a problem for the pagan Greeks because they believed the future was fixed and unchangeable even by the gods, and so any steps you took to prevent a prophecy from happening would in fact be part of the set of events that cause that prophecy to be fulfilled. Laius and Jocasta receive a prophecy that their son Oedipus would murder his father and marry his mother, so they expose him. Consequently, he grows up not knowing who his parents are, so nothing tells him not to kill Laius or marry Jocasta.

By contrast the Bible, ISTM, teaches that the future is not immutable and human choices do matter. Jonah prophesies that Nineveh will be destroyed, so the Ninevites repent, and it isn't. Isaiah tells Hezekiah that he won't recover from his illness; Hezekiah repents, and lives fifteen years longer.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As said in the closed

"Daniel 9: Taken as 69 (=62+7) – all driven by Jeremiah's 70 year Exile prophecy (Jer. 25:12) - x 7 = 483 years. To make that tie up with Christ's death in 30-33 one has to use 'prophetic years' (Revelation 12:6, 14 (cf. Dan 7:25; 12:7)) of 360 days to get back to the warrant given to Nehemiah in 445(a) odd to rebuild the temple. All very Dispensationalist.

And I can accept it. All. Whether it was written around 200 or 600 BCE. As miraculous revelation from God of His intent. Because again, He doesn't have to do anything. Nothing intrusive, coercive, nasty. Un-Christlike. All He had to do was ensure that Nehemiah got the warrant and that was followed through, and incarnate ( 483 x 360 ) / 365.25 = 476 = 445(a) + 30 odd years later. Despite there being a perfectly good... historical-critical solution* that avoids prophecy. He didn't have to passively see a future that didn't exist by magic. He couldn't have worked it out like 500 years of Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greco-Roman dominance, it's too detailed. He had to intervene, minimally. Fine.

*62 'weeks' (428 if 'prophetic', 434 if not) from 605/4 or 539/8 or 458/7 or 445/4 giving us 177/6 or 171/0, 111/0 or 105/4, 30/29 or 24/3 and 17/6 or 11/0 BCE in which the 605/4 – 434 one in eight permutation gives us the 'an anointed one... cut off'; high priest Onias III's murder. Montgomery's “dismal swamp” of critical exegesis indeed! Rationalistically it's the only answer."

But He didn't. Intervene. Any more than He inspired foretelling prophecy. In Daniel 9. He inspired apocalyptic. He inspired the apocalyptic recording of history as it had unfolded in Daniel 9 and 10-11.

There is nothing prophetic of Jesus here, just a normal, common recurring anthropological trope throughout Jewish and other oppressed cultures which Jesus and His apologists more so, particularly Matthew, arrogated. Rightly.

Daniel was no seer. Nobody was. Including Jesus of course. Not by any rationally faithful criteria.

[ 01. January 2018, 14:09: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Daniel was no seer.
Not sure what YOUR point was in all this Martin 60, but the point is not made that Daniel was no seer.

[ 09. January 2018, 21:08: 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
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm no longer into this sort of thing. However, if someone is going with the idea that God literally dictated scripture, then God could've intended additional meanings, prophecies, resonances that the person taking dictation wasn't aware of.

If you believe the entire Bible is literally given by God and infallible in the original manuscripts, then the Bible becomes a wonderful call and response. A symphony with repeating themes and snatches of themes.

If that's what Jamat believes, then what he says makes some sense.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Of course it makes sense, but it only makes sense in its own terms and within its own fairly narrow and somewhat hermetically sealed frame of reference.

It can become highly reductionist. It's not a corset but a strait-jacket.

It's as if there's no room for mystery, as if we have to tie up all loose-ends.

It becomes a closed system.

To an extent, yes - there are parameters, guidelines, frames of reference.

The issue, it seems to me is how tightly we tie the knots. If we operate within a system that every single verse and reference must have an equal and corresponding reference somewhere else within the corpus otherwise we begin to get jumpy, then we are going to start looking for patterns and principles that appear to make it all 'fit'.

That's what Dispensationalism does and it's an enticing option and prospect if one is inclined to want everything to be neatly packaged and tied up.

I understand the motivation, but not the execution. It becomes forced and contrived as proponents try to vire everything into fit.

I think it's unfair though to accuse Jamat of promoting a 'dictation' theory of divine inspiration. He doesn't appear to regard the scriptures as a form of 'automatic writing' or dictated in some way as Muslim fundamentalists seem to believe in the case of the Quran.

--------------------
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
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As for the Bible being a symphony with repeating themes and snatches of themes - well yes, I don't have an issue with that at all.

That's how I approach scripture.

So, yes, Revelation picks up on themes and imagery from Daniel, Ezekiel and so on. There are echoes, references, parallels ...

Absolutely.

It's rather like T S Eliot's Four Quartets where themes are repeated and developed as though in a piece of music.

I'm all in favour of that.

I just think that some of the harmonising in Schofield and writers/commentators of that ilk is pretty forced at times.

--------------------
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
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually, I wasn't accusing Jamat of anything. I grew up with the church teachings I mentioned. Most of that is in my "don't know" stack (along with just about everything else in life).

I read your posts, Gamaliel, as saying that his beliefs didn't make any sense. And I'm surprised to hear that you want some mystery--that seems the opposite of what you were posting.

Did I misread you?

I just thought that maybe I could shed a little light on what Jamat was saying.

I'm tired, so I'll stop now. Will try to check back in the next couple of days.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Daniel was no seer.
Not sure what YOUR point was in all this Martin 60, but the point is not made that Daniel was no seer.
He wasn't according to Jesus or any of His contemporaries.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Apart from Jesus' single Marcan reference used by the Matthew school, which isn't related to Jesus Himself. That's the point. Jesus never used Daniel to see Himself. Interesting that.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Daniel was no seer.
Not sure what YOUR point was in all this Martin 60, but the point is not made that Daniel was no seer.
He wasn't according to Jesus or any of His contemporaries.
You are making it up as you go along!

Matt 24:15..”When you see the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the PROPHET..”

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Gamaliel: I just think that some of the harmonising in Schofield and writers/commentators of that ilk is pretty forced at times.

Wow really? But you NEVER have anything to say about specifics or any genuine alternative readings. When, for instance Messiah was cut off and had nothing, this is undeniably a prophetic reference to the crucifixion. So, given there are 70 weeks and Messiah dies after 69..pretty accurate..what has happened to the 70th week?

You have a very accurate fulfilled prediction but then..a puzzle. The accuracy of the first part betokens a genuine prophecy. Do you say the second part is wrong? ..but Jesus refers to it in Matt 24:15 so it can’t be! The only solution is that the 70th week is still future, despite actions of Antiochus IV who certainly did desecrate the temple but many years before.

--------------------
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
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel: I just think that some of the harmonising in Schofield and writers/commentators of that ilk is pretty forced at times.

Wow really? But you NEVER have anything to say about specifics or any genuine alternative readings. When, for instance Messiah was cut off and had nothing, this is undeniably a prophetic reference to the crucifixion. So, given there are 70 weeks and Messiah dies after 69..pretty accurate..what has happened to the 70th week?

You have a very accurate fulfilled prediction but then..a puzzle. The accuracy of the first part betokens a genuine prophecy. Do you say the second part is wrong? ..but Jesus refers to it in Matt 24:15 so it can’t be! The only solution is that the 70th week is still future, despite actions of Antiochus IV who certainly did desecrate the temple but many years before.

All you are doing is proving my point about there being people who want to batten down all the hatches and tie up apparent loose ends.

Other posters have gone into the specifics and provided alternative readings and so on. I'm reasonably conversant with the scriptures - signs of a better-spent youth ... [Biased] but I don't have time to go poring over prophecies with a pocket-calculator trying to work out when the 39th, 49th, 59th or 69th week was fulfilled.

That's not how I approach scripture.

As it happens, yes, I do see a Messianic 'anticipation' or reference in Daniel 9 and it does 'fit' the events around the crucifixion - but that doesn't necessarily imply a commutive direct equivalence thing ... we are talking about echoes, parallels, 'this is that ...'

As for the reference to the 'abomination that causes desolation' in Matthew 24:15 - well yes, this is Jesus picking up on and applying a reference in Daniel to his own times and ministry - and there are various hypotheses as to what he was referring to.

- Is it the destruction of The Temple in AD 70?

- Is it his own death, as some commentators have postulated?

- Is it a future event yet to be fulfilled?

One can argue the case for each, and I daresay other alternatives besides.

Fair enough.

What I wouldn't do is to present any one 'take' or interpretation as to what it might be as the cast-iron last-word on anything.

That sounds a reasonable position to me as we're dealing with mysteries and prophecy not with a cross-word puzzle or some kind of verbal Meccano-set or an Ikea assembly diagram that somehow (eventually) all fits.

No, we are dealing with something a lot deeper and richer than that.

I'm sure you find my answers unsatisfactory, equivocal and frustrating, but I'm not prepared to play the kind of interpretative games that Schofield, Darby, Anderson and others indulged in. I don't see the point. I don't think they get us anywhere.

We see as through a glass darkly, but we still see.

I'm all for picking up on the harmonies and strands in scripture. I love it. What I don't do is concoct a join-the-dots or Painting By Numbers approach to working out how they all fit.

Speculating about whether there is an as yet unfulfilled '70th week' dangling around out there awaiting the final count-down strikes me as a complete waste of time and energy.

--------------------
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      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Gamaliel: I’m sure you find my answers unsatisfactory, equivocal and frustrating
Not at all, it is obvious you simply have no answers.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Daniel was no seer.
Not sure what YOUR point was in all this Martin 60, but the point is not made that Daniel was no seer.
He wasn't according to Jesus or any of His contemporaries.
You are making it up as you go along!

Matt 24:15..”When you see the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the PROPHET..”

Just like Jesus, although He never used Daniel to validate Himself. Funny that.

And a prophet isn't a seer.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Daniel was no seer.
Not sure what YOUR point was in all this Martin 60, but the point is not made that Daniel was no seer.
He wasn't according to Jesus or any of His contemporaries.
You are making it up as you go along!

Matt 24:15..”When you see the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the PROPHET..”

Just like Jesus, although He never used Daniel to validate Himself. Funny that.

And a prophet isn't a seer.

You ARE just making it up as you go along..oh well.

--------------------
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
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel: I’m sure you find my answers unsatisfactory, equivocal and frustrating
Not at all, it is obvious you simply have no answers.
Or not answers you'd like to hear.

There is a difference.

I have given answers, even if they are in the form of questions.

Like so:

Matthew 24:15 What is the 'abomination that causes desolation'?

- Is it the destruction of The Temple in AD 70?

- Is it his own death, as some commentators have postulated?

- Is it a future event yet to be fulfilled?

I can't see what's wrong with that as an answer as it could be any one of those or a combination of all three - or it could be other options I've not listed.

Plenty of posters, Ricardus, Eutychus, Martin60 (when I can follow what he's saying), Nick Tamen and many others have put forward possible answers and solutions whether on this thread or on the 'apocalyptic literature' thread or the Dead Horses thread about scriptural inspiration.

Somehow, none of these are 'good enough' for you.

--------------------
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
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel: I’m sure you find my answers unsatisfactory, equivocal and frustrating
Not at all, it is obvious you simply have no answers.
Jamat, we have been warned by Hosts and Admins that posts of this nature belong in Hell.

I think this one deserves a Hell call.

May I cordially invite you to the Nether Regions?

--------------------
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
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Daniel was no seer.
Not sure what YOUR point was in all this Martin 60, but the point is not made that Daniel was no seer.
He wasn't according to Jesus or any of His contemporaries.
You are making it up as you go along!

Matt 24:15..”When you see the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the PROPHET..”

Just like Jesus, although He never used Daniel to validate Himself. Funny that.

And a prophet isn't a seer.

You ARE just making it up as you go along..oh well.
Yep, just like Jesus.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
OK, because I know everyone is anxious to hear more about the 360-day prophetic year.

The story so far: on the DH thread Jamat presented a scheme by a chap called Sir Robert Anderson which requires us to suppose that Daniel's weeks refer to seven years of 360 days each. Scriptural support for a 360-day year comes from the calendar dates of the flood in Genesis.

My objection to this is a.) a lunar cycle is 29.5 days, so a 30-day month would quite quickly lose the connection between the new moon and the new month, and b.) at least some Hebrew festivals are tied to the seasons, specifically to the harvest, and it would be impossible to do this unless your year at least averaged 365.25 days (e.g. by intercalation). Therefore whatever the Genesis passage means, it doesn't mean a 360-day year.

Jamat's response was that Sir Robert Anderson had an answer to this and that I should read him. Regretfully, I have not been able to find him online, but the objections above are so obvious that I was reasonably certain that dispensationalists would have responses to them, so I have browsed quite a lot of websites in search of those responses.

Firstly I found a quote from Anderson:
quote:
It is noteworthy that the prophecy was given at Babylon, and the Babylonian year consisted of twelve months of thirty days. That the prophetic year is not the ordinary year is no new discovery. It was noticed sixteen centuries ago by Julias Africanus in his Chronography, wherein he explains the seventy weeks to be weeks of Jewish (lunar) years, beginning with the twentieth of Artaxerxes, the fourth year of the 83rd Olympiad, and ending in the second year of the 202nd Olympiad; 475 Julian years being equal to 490 lunar years.
This would be quite neat, except that:
1.) the Babylonian calendar does not have 30-day months, but alternates 29- and 30-day months just like the Hebrew calendar;
2.) Julius Africanus in fact assumes a year of 354 days, which is the Jewish calendar without intercalary months - this is obvious in that he arrives at a figure of 475 Julian years whereas Anderson has 477 Julian years;
3.) If the Babylonian calendar did have 30-day months, then by definition it wouldn't be a lunar calendar;
4.) It still doesn't explain my objection (b) above.

Among the numerous dispensationalist websites I browsed I could find only two other responses to my objections:

1.) That the length of the lunar and solar cycles changed at some point in history - possibly as a consequence of the Flood and/or Hezekiah's shadow;

2.) That Hebrew months weren't in origin lunar.

(1) I think is an application of Poe's Law. Regarding (2), I'm not sure there is anything in the Bible that explicitly says the months are lunar but the idea that they weren't goes against everything we know about the Hebrew calendar - and it likewise doesn't resolve my objection (b).

So I think I agree with Eutychus' comment on the DH thread - that this sort of exposition creates more problems than it solves; in order to explain an apparent dating discrepancy in Genesis, we have to suppose that the entire solar system reorganised itself without leaving any astronomical trace. I'd also say that points 1-4 are evidence that Sir Robert Anderson doesn't know what he's talking about.

[ 20. January 2018, 08:28: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well done Ricardus.

I think we can all agree that there is a theological term for dear old Anderson's eschatological speculations:

Bollocks.

--------------------
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      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well done Ricardus.

I think we can all agree that there is a theological term for dear old Anderson's eschatological speculations:

Bollocks.

You can agree all by yourself if you want. There has been nothing in anything you have posted on the topic to suggest that you have considered or understood his reasoning.
Ricardus has actually argued from outside scripture that the 360 day lunar year used clearly within scripture is unworkable. What he said is beside the point. What is evident from within scripture is that Anderson’s line of thinking stands up to scrutiny and is dismissed only by those unwilling to consider its claims.

[ 22. January 2018, 20:53: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why should I give any credence to his claims?

I've he's enough pre-millenialist claptrap in my time. The whole thing is a red herring and a distraction. I wouldn't even give it the time of day and I'm not aware of any serious theologians who do.

--------------------
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      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Why should I give any credence to his claims?

I've he's enough pre-millenialist claptrap in my time. The whole thing is a red herring and a distraction. I wouldn't even give it the time of day and I'm not aware of any serious theologians who do.

So you keep asserting. However, you never have specifically engaged or explained why you dismiss them. It is all bluff and bluster. What serious theologians? What arguments do they put forward that dismiss pre-millenialism? If you go for the big T lot then you have an amillenialist case where church replaces Israel. How is this justified? It has led to Catholic support of antisemitism.

--------------------
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      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What is evident from within scripture is that Anderson’s line of thinking stands up to scrutiny and is dismissed only by those unwilling to consider its claims.

Well, that’s a convenient way to dismiss counter-arguments you don’t agree with—“they’re just unwilling to consider the argument on its merits.” It strikes me as a somewhat ad hominem defense, attacking the motives of the arguer rather than their merits of the argument.

--------------------
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
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What is evident from within scripture is that Anderson’s line of thinking stands up to scrutiny and is dismissed only by those unwilling to consider its claims.

Well, that’s a convenient way to dismiss counter-arguments you don’t agree with—“they’re just unwilling to consider the argument on its merits.” It strikes me as a somewhat ad hominem defense, attacking the motives of the arguer rather than their merits of the argument.
Really? That would have some credibility if anyone HAD specifically engaged and there was an argument whose merits one could judge. No one has. All they have said or implied is that Premillenialism is ‘a priori’ false because it’s part of the ‘false’ theology they dabbled in in the past but have now outgrown.

And yet of all the eschatological schemes, it is the only one that seeks to fully encompass the OT, the only one that fully respects the Bible as inspired and the only one where specific OT prophecies concerning the manifestation of the Messiah and the exile/restoration pattern of Jewish history are explained.

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You should add a caveat to that, 'explained speculatively.'

The only merit I can see in such schemes is that they do avoid the anti-Semitism that was inherent and endemic in the older and historic Churches and which was inherited by the Reformers.

However,it does that at the expense of toppling over into questionable exegesis and sometimes into pro-Zionist territory.

For the record, I never signed up for pre-millenialist schemes in the first place so it's not something I 'grew out of'. I encountered it early on as I attended a Brethren assembly but I never became a member nor did I take it on board. I found it pretty unconvincing from the get-go ..
All that Hal Lindley stuff and quotes from The Reader's Digest about vultures in the Negev ...

Ok, I'm sure there are guys out there who could have made a better fist of it but there are no mainstream theologians or seminaries that major on this stuff. Ok, there's Dallas but one could argue that it's something of an outlier.

The issue is that it seeks to solve one problem and only ends up introducing a shed load of others - an Eutychus has identified some of these during previous discussions.

--------------------
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
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Really? That would have some credibility if anyone HAD specifically engaged and there was an argument whose merits one could judge. No one has. All they have said or implied is that Premillenialism is ‘a priori’ false because it’s part of the ‘false’ theology they dabbled in in the past but have now outgrown.

Ricardus’s response simply cannot he described this way, nor can it be summarily dismissed with “he just doesn’t understand Anderson’s argument.”

quote:
And yet of all the eschatological schemes, it is . . . the only one that fully respects the Bible as inspired . . . .
So nobody before Sir Robert Anderson fully respected the Bible as inspired? Nobody who disagrees with you fully respects the Bible as inspired? Is that really what you’re asserting?

--------------------
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      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think it's quite important here to distinguish between two different versions of 'pre-millennialism'.

There is what might be called a 'simple' pre-millenialism which says "At some time in the future Jesus returns and his return introduces an earthly millennial kingdom".

And there is the early 19th-century view, derived from Irving via Darby and as far as I can discover previously unknown, in which
"At some time in the future Jesus returns to remove his Church from the Earth (the 'Rapture') while leaving everybody else behind to go through the events of the Tribulation and the rule of the Antichrist, after which Jesus returns again (again!) to defeat the Antichrist and initiate the Millennial kingdom".

I gave on a previous thread my analysis of why that latter view is wrong. As a quick summary, Irving's original view was a simple pre-millennialism but combined with a heavy stress on the imminent Second Coming - as in, you were supposed to believe that it had to be possibly 'any minute now'. In the hothouse atmosphere of 'prophetic conferences' which arose out of Irving's teachings, they found awkward prophecies which

A) clearly hadn't been fulfilled yet, and
B) didn't fit in the Millennium or after it, yet
C) also couldn't be fitted in before the Millennium if the Second Advent was supposed to be 'any minute now'.

This - to my view completely artificial and unnecessary - dilemma was resolved by the idea of a Second Advent that was followed by an intermediate period before the Millennium in which these unfulfilled prophecies could be fulfilled....

Of course in the event the Second Coming was not 'any minute now', and in the nearly two centuries since that theory was produced at least one major item that worried them then has in fact been fulfilled, the establishment of the nation of Israel. (Either that or we've all been 'left behind' not just for seven years but now at least seventy...)

That theory was really not truly biblical interpretation but a fixation on a questionable meaning of one idea and then making all other interpretation fit that artificial requirement.

Simple pre-Millennialism is more plausible. I think it is still wrong, but has nowhere near the problems of the 'Left Behind' thinking. Basically the issue is how you interpret Revelation - is it a straightforward chronological work in which, after the initial 'letters to the churches', what is recounted in chapter four is followed by the events of chapter five, five by six and so on? Or does it follow a different scheme?

If it is simply straight chronology, then obviously history runs to the end of chapter 19 and the the Millennium begins as a separate period, after which the true 'end of the world', the judgement and the new heavens and earth, as recounted in the rest of the book.

But if Revelation is on a different scheme...?

The main contender is some form of 'parallelism' which sees the book as repeatedly looking at the whole 'Gospel Age' in different aspects. In such a view the Millennial passage in Rev 20 is not a separate period of history but a kind of 'summary/recap' before moving on at the end of the book to the judgement and re-creation. For example the battle in Rev 20; 9-10 would actually be the same battle as in Rev 19.

This would presumably make a difference to how the Daniel passage would be interpreted.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Steve Langton: As a quick summary, Irving's original view was a simple pre-millennialism but combined with a heavy stress on the imminent Second Coming - as in, you were supposed to believe that it had to be possibly 'any minute now'. In the hothouse atmosphere of 'prophetic conferences' which arose out of Irving's teachings, they found awkward prophecies which

A) clearly hadn't been fulfilled yet, and
B) didn't fit in the Millennium or after it, yet
C) also couldn't be fitted in before the Millennium if the Second Advent was supposed to be 'any minute now'.

This - to my view completely artificial and unnecessary - dilemma was resolved by the idea of a Second Advent that was followed by an intermediate period before the Millennium in which these unfulfilled prophecies could be fulfilled....

Well that is not any kind of quick summary. It is a generalised mishmash of misinformation. As with most here I suspect you have no more than a generalised inaccurate overview of premillennial teaching.
The motivation for it is the need to specifically engage with prophecy. The major principle of it is the separation of the church from Israel the unfulfilled prophecies concerning Israel and the necessity for it is that problematic paradoxical statements that concern the second coming in the New Testament.
How anyone could suggest that such concerns are not important or that attempts to deal with them are artificial and unnecessary, suggests a theology that does not take scripture seriously.

--------------------
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      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Nick Tamen: So nobody before Sir Robert Anderson fully respected the Bible as inspired? Nobody who disagrees with you fully respects the Bible as inspired? Is that really what you’re asserting?
I have neither implied or suggested either of these things Nick rather merely observed that criticism is general and rather pathetically uninformed.

--------------------
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      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Nick Tamen: So nobody before Sir Robert Anderson fully respected the Bible as inspired? Nobody who disagrees with you fully respects the Bible as inspired? Is that really what you’re asserting?
I have neither implied or suggested either of these things Nick rather merely observed that criticism is general and rather pathetically uninformed.
You have indeed suggested them. You stated that “of all the eschatological schemes, [Anderson’s] is . . . the [/i]only one[/i] that fully respects the Bible as inspired.” The emphasis is mine but the words are yours, and I don’t know how else to read them other than as a statement that no understanding but yours and Anderson’s “fully respects the Bible as inspired.”

But I’m happy to accept the clarification that that is not what you’re asserting.

--------------------
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
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Nick Tamen: So nobody before Sir Robert Anderson fully respected the Bible as inspired? Nobody who disagrees with you fully respects the Bible as inspired? Is that really what you’re asserting?
I have neither implied or suggested either of these things Nick rather merely observed that criticism is general and rather pathetically uninformed.
You have indeed suggested them. You stated that “of all the eschatological schemes, [Anderson’s] is . . . the [/i]only one[/i] that fully respects the Bible as inspired.” The emphasis is mine but the words are yours, and I don’t know how else to read them other than as a statement that no understanding but yours and Anderson’s “fully respects the Bible as inspired.”

But I’m happy to accept the clarification that that is not what you’re asserting.

yes, well context is everything. The assumptions you make are yours not mine.

--------------------
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
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You seem to be asserting what you denied earlier, when Nick Tamen challenged you, Jamat ... that anyone who doesn't take premillenialism seriously doesn't take scripture seriously.

Well I don't take premillenialism at all seriously.

Yet I take scripture very seriously indeed.

So do lots of other people who are unconvinced by premillenial speculations and assumptions.

The onus is on you to prove otherwise.

--------------------
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
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
yes, well context is everything. The assumptions you make are yours not mine.

The words chosen and the way they are used are yours.

--------------------
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
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
yes, well context is everything. The assumptions you make are yours not mine.

The words chosen and the way they are used are yours.
They are indeed and unless the context of the particular discourse is in view, they can be misleading. There is no intention to impugn anyone or to suggest Robert Anderson was the only trustworthy expositor up to that point. I do not think he is correct in every detail and have said as much. Herbert W Armstrong made such a claim. Anderson did not and nor did I on his behalf.

--------------------
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      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You seem to be asserting what you denied earlier, when Nick Tamen challenged you, Jamat ... that anyone who doesn't take premillenialism seriously doesn't take scripture seriously.

Well I don't take premillenialism at all seriously.

Yet I take scripture very seriously indeed.

So do lots of other people who are unconvinced by premillenial speculations and assumptions.

The onus is on you to prove otherwise.

I am sure you do take scripture very seriously. What speculations and assumptions in particular?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, granted, but you are making the claim that those who don't adopt your particular take on these things are somehow failing to take the scriptures as seriously as you do.

Which sounds somewhat hubristic to me. I'm sure it's not intended that way though.

--------------------
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
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I cross-posted.

'Speculations and assumptions'?

We all make hermeneutical leaps. It strikes me that many Dispensationalists make those without being aware that this is what they are doing.

Just sayin'.

--------------------
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      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I cross-posted.

'Speculations and assumptions'?

We all make hermeneutical leaps. It strikes me that many Dispensationalists make those without being aware that this is what they are doing.

Just sayin'.

So..where is there a leap that you think unwarranted?

--------------------
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
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am not sure if this belongs here or on the Dead Horses thread.

Some 30 or more years ago, I started to read some Anderson. Now starting is all I did, probably 100 - 125 pages in all, but that was enough. I had these conclusions:

1. Anderson was extremely tedious to read.
2. He made a whole series of assumptions which underlay his theories. The length of the year was one. He did not provide any argument in support of these.
3. His thinking was not something with which anyone could grapple as basically there was no thinking apparent, certainly none that anyone could grapple with.

Jamat's referred somewhere to Anderson's police history. It's pretty apparent that this career owes a lot to the influence of his father and other family members - for example, he was sacked once for incompetence, but a few months later mysteriously was reappointed.

Jamat, some time ago, I asked you for your estimate of the age of the phoenix. Do you have any thoughts please?

[ 24. January 2018, 07:00: Message edited by: Gee D ]

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I cross-posted.

'Speculations and assumptions'?

We all make hermeneutical leaps. It strikes me that many Dispensationalists make those without being aware that this is what they are doing.

Just sayin'.

So..where is there a leap that you think unwarranted?
Where do you want me to start?

More seriously, I acknowledged that all of us make these kind of leaps. What happens, it seems me, is that Dispensationalists can be more reluctant to acknowledge these leaps than others are ...

In the same way, certain highly conservative Christians are reluctant to acknowledge that their views are part of a tradition (small t) because to them any kind of t carries negative connotations.

--------------------
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      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Soo..start with the biggest leap.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by Jamat
quote:
How anyone could suggest that such concerns are not important or that attempts to deal with them are artificial and unnecessary, suggests a theology that does not take scripture seriously.

The concerns are important and attempts to deal with them are necessary. However, I find that one particular attempt is 'artificial' because in the enthusiastic reaction to Irving's ideas an unnecessary and only apparent paradox was created. That was the paradox between an insistence that one had to believe in an 'any minute now' Second Coming and the discovery that there were unfulfilled prophecies that didn't easily fit that idea.

They could have followed the example of Paul advising the Thessalonians who had got a bit over-enthusiastic about the Advent; he reminded them that they would need to wait for certain prophecies about the 'Man of Sin' to be fulfilled, and so should in effect scale back from 'Red Alert' to a more moderate but still watchful level of expectation. I would suggest that this would also have been an appropriate reaction for Irving and his followers.

Instead the early 19thC prophetic enthusiasts continued to insist on an 'any minute now' Advent and had to find an explanation of the unfulfilled prophecies which would fit that. And somebody came up with the idea of an Advent which took the Church away but left the world to carry on for a while until the prophecies had been fulfilled. According to one account the initial idea came from a 'prophet' - Irving had also experimented with re-introducing charismatic gifts.

So as far as I'm concerned that particular 'attempt' to deal with the concerns is 'artificial and unnecessary' arising from a questionable understanding of the way one should expect the Advent.

Simple pre-millennialism is a significantly different idea to the elaborate 'Rapture followed by Tribulation before the Millennium' theory.

Question - where except in Rev 20 is there any specific unambiguous mention of the Millennial Kingdom as a distinct intermediate period?

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Soo..start with the biggest leap.

One small step for a man ...

One of the issues here is that anything I put forward as a 'leap', whether a short hop or a giant stride, you are going to deny to be one. I've seen you do that before.

Instead, you will insist on it being the 'plain reading of the text', because that's the assumption you are making and the paradigm you are working with.

So anything I say, however well argued or poorly put, is going to be dismissed.

I'm sorry, but that's how I see it.

Accepting that it's a forlorn hope and your dice are already stacked against me, I submit the following as interpretive leaps. I am not going to stack them according to how long or short a leap I think they are.

FWIW, though, I'm essentially in agreement with Steve Langton (wonders have never ceased) in that I can see that a 'straightforward' belief in the Second Advent followed by a Millenial Reign is a short step from a particular reading of scripture, but that the elaborate yo-yo return in several phases approach favoured by pre-tribulation Rapture enthusiasts is something of a longer leap - or perhaps something achieved via a series of stepping stones that have to be put in place to make it work.

So, interpretive leaps:

- The assumption that prophecies in apocalyptic passages are necessarily predictive.

- The assumption that certain figurative tropes are to be taken more literally than is necessarily the case.

- The assumption that figurative language and symbolic/allegorical use of numbers are to be treated as actual forecasts of time-scaled events.

I could go on.

--------------------
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
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Gee D

Might one ask why one is repeatedly asking Jamat for an estimate of the age of the phoenix? Is this an antipodean thing? Or something else esoteric? It can't be any older than 6021 years obviously. Nothing is.

[ 24. January 2018, 12:07: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
@Gee D

Might one ask why one is repeatedly asking Jamat for an estimate of the age of the phoenix? Is this an antipodean thing? Or something else esoteric? It can't be any older than 6021 years obviously. Nothing is.

Possibly for the same reason that Jamat keeps challenging me to prove him wrong by citing chapter and verse, because he thinks I can't ...

I do seem to remember a Phoenix reference in the dim and distant, but its significance is lost on me now.

Besides, unless I'm very much mistaken, there aren't any Phoenixes in the Bible so they don't count ...

[Biased]

There is a Phoenix in Tennessee though, and that seems to be the region that Jamat derives his theology from ...

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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools