|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Daniel 9:24-27
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I merely assert that they are historic; there are obviously all sorts of ways to read them.
You have done more than merely assert that they are historical, Jamat. Just yesterday, you said:
quote:
I think that God’s stories in particular, Daniel, Moses,David,Jonah, Joshua, Samson Jesus the Christ, Paul etc etc are all historical. I think that if they are part of the great meta narrative of the Bible, they must be and if they are not then we are relying on very tenuous support for our faith.
So, why "must" Job and Jonah be historical, and why is support for our faith tenuous if they are not?
Not the point again. exclusive readings?..never said that.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
All I’m asking, Jamat, is for you to support what you've said—to say why you assert what you assert. I'm not sure why that seems so difficult, or why you seem so determined not to do it.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
All I’m asking, Jamat, is for you to support what you've said—to say why you assert what you assert. I'm not sure why that seems so difficult, or why you seem so determined not to do it.
What I said was:
There is a real history in those books
If it is denied then the books are fraudulent..masquerading as fact when they are not
Notwithstanding, the above, there are different ways to read them. You could see Job as a study in the cycle of depression, etc.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
There is a real history in those books
Are "those books" real history, or poetic reconstruction of real history, in your view?
[ 07. February 2018, 05:33: 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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What I said was:
There is a real history in those books
If it is denied then the books are fraudulent..masquerading as fact when they are not
Notwithstanding, the above, there are different ways to read them. You could see Job as a study in the cycle of depression, etc.
Does either Job or Jonah purport to be fact? I'd say no more than the parable of the Samaritan does.
[ 07. February 2018, 06:16: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Wait, let's assume for the sake of the argument that Jamat is right, and there is "a real history in those books".
Because at the same time, he now concedes that "Job is a poem" and gives us to understand that "poems [can]... reconstruct genuine narratives".
So I would like confirmation from Jamat that he accepts a degree of poetic reconstruction in, say, Job and Jonah.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can't speak for anyone else, but I haven't denied that there was a real Job or Jonah son of Amittai.
Even if there weren't and the historiography was on a par with that of Geoffrey of Monmouth, say, then would that make the books 'fraudulent'?
Geoffrey of Monmouth is hopeless as history but as an imaginative slant on the past it's interesting and valuable - although clearly no where near as much as Bede, although we aren't dealing with histography in the modern sense either.
I can't really understand how or why the integrity or status of scripture is undermined if it includes more imaginative material. To hold that it it strikes me as showing well, a lack of imagination ...
--------------------
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
All agreed. Let's not let Jamat off the hook here.
Jamat, do you accept a degree of "poetic reconstruction" in books such as Jonah and Job?
--------------------
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
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can't speak for anyone else, but I haven't denied that there was a real Job or Jonah son of Amittai.
I don’t think there was a real Jonah, because the power in the story is that it’s incredible. But I’m very happy to be wrong about that - it would just mean that my interpretation would turn out to be duff. I’m sure lots of my interpretations are wrong.
It’s not new to interpret Jonah as a parable; according to Jerome, in the fourth century many saw it as a representing the ultimate repentance of Satan and his angels, represented by the King and people of Nineveh (that’s how evil the people of Nineveh were perceived). But yeah, I wouldn’t deny that Jonah existed, I just find it unlikely.
As for Job, I’m on the fence. I don’t think it makes much difference either way. If he was a real person, his story is obviously heavily dramatised (with as much poetic license as most Hollywood ‘true’ stories).
I’d really like it if Jamat would give a straight answer to Eutychus’s question. I’d also like to know what he’d say to someone more conservative than him, who would assert that Jesus parables are true, historical stories that happened -otherwise Jesus is a liar and a fraud. I guess we’d end up going in circles again, talking about the “clear signals” that Jesus is making the parables up. But I already tried to engage with the clear signals thing with no response. Maybe I’d suggest reading Rob Bell’s What we talk about when we talk about God, which explores these things, but Rob Bell’s probably a heretic so not worth listening to.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Jamat is an unchangeable catalyst who gets us to refine our positions outside him. We get to explore the fact that there is no foretelling prophecy necessitating God the Killer or interventionist beyond the incarnation and by the Spirit. That despite the perfection of materialism, there is hope.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Jamat is an unchangeable catalyst who gets us to refine our positions outside him.
I am finding this to be true.
I would still like to know whether Jamat does indeed accept a degree of "poetic reconstruction" in books such as Jonah and Job.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I hope not and I'm sure not. We love him as he is surely? He certainly loves us despite our genteel hostility.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
That's the implication of what he's said in recent posts, as summarised here.
--------------------
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
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
I think where the crossed wires might be is that Jamat genuinely thinks that we’re making unfounded assertions and he’s not. From his point of view, saying “It’s historical” is not contentious, but saying “It doesn’t necessarily have to be historical”, or “It’s not historical” is contentious. Hence why he doesn’t need to back up his assertions, but others do.
This is probably the bit that flummoxes me the most. In particular,
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Once again I am on the wrong side of 'prove this!'
The text says what it says.
The text is scripture.
The contention is that the text is non historical.
That sequence just doesn’t follow, for me. To my mind, saying, “It’s definitely historical” is just as contentious as saying, “It might or might not be.” - maybe more.
That’s the bit that I simply can’t follow. Jamat, if you can explain how this follows in your mind, I’d really appreciate it. Obviously we’re all making various assertions. I just don’t get why you feel you don’t have to back yours up, but others do. Of course, I’m happy to back mine up. You?
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, it's all predicated on his view of inerrancy of course. 'It's scripture, and if you lot have a problem with it then that's your issue, not mine ...'
On Jonah as a real person ... Why not?
It doesn't mean that your interpretation is wrong, Goperryrevs.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's the implication of what he's said in recent posts, as summarised here.
He's talking form, not content. Job and Jonah are history to Jamat and always will be.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Even if it is assumed they contain history, Jamat seems to be asserting that they are a poetic reconstruction of history, and it is this assertion I'd like to verify from the man himself.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Is that Hell I hear thawing?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I've always thought 'inerrancy' is not an ideal word to apply to Scripture precisely because I follow the general idea of that Tyndale quote I keep referring to. In a sense only Scripture that is always what I'd call "dumb wooden literal" can be fully 'inerrant', and the Scriptures clearly aren't that simplistically literal, but use varied genres and literary devices which the pedantic might see as 'errant' rather than legitimate literary artistry.
So at one end Luke, in Acts and the Gospel, is intending to be seriously historical, and research sources for the life of Jesus. There are some literary devices but not, I think, anywhere near total invention. (I'll likely be following this up in the DH thread which seems to be sharing a lot with this one).
Go further back and some of the history is bald 'chronicle/annal' material, while some might reasonably be described as 'saga' - if you like, the exciting dramatic 'round the campfire' version, but basically true. While if you go right back to early Genesis, there is stuff which isn't exactly the same as but is, shall we say, more like Orwell's "Animal Farm" than it is like an academic version of the Russian Revolution - true in very important ways, but not literal history as normally understood nowadays....
Job - I think a substrate of truth in a folk tale, but used by a gifted "Hebrew Shakespeare" to create a dramatic examination of issues around suffering and especially innocent suffering.
Jonah - honestly not sure but willing to accept the possibility that it is a parable rather than a literal history if that will help people over their inability to 'swallow' the fish...! Jonah as a person does appear to be historical - II Kings 14 v25, dating to c790BCE - and one wonders if he was "the kind of person you'd tell such a story about". The fish doesn't bother me; but the geography of a voyage to Tarshish (West Med) ending in a fish vomiting Jonah out near Nineveh doesn't work too well.
Prophecy of course is a different genre; but I tend to the view that we should accept background history as basically truth. Daniel I understand offers particular difficulties because it is partly in Aramaic and has other intrusions (in the LXX) which nowadays are relegated in Protestant lands to the 'Apocrypha'.
You have an added difficulty in discussing this because Jamat seems to be coming from the biblically dubious position of the "Rapture followed by 'third coming' followed by Millennium" idea which as far as I'm concerned is not true biblical interpretation anyway but the consequence of C19 mistakes. Daniel is on the one hand important to that view but also likely to be somewhat skewed if interpreted by it. Like most followers of that view Jamat is of course convinced that he is following Scripture.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think 'saga' is a good way of putting it and the 'Animal Farm' analogy also holds.
Where I might part company with you, Steve, is the claim that the 'pedantic' may find some of the more poetic / saga / mythological material (myth in the C S Lewis sense) as 'errant'.
Something written by a 'Hebrew Shakespeare' can be true to the human condition and experience without having to be factually and literally accurate at all points.
As for literary elements in Acts, sure there are going to be less of those, perhaps, than in OT historiography, but there are still a substantial amount of them, as there is in any literature of this period - or any literature of whatever kind.
Jamat still hasn't told us whether he thinks Job or Jonah are poetic reconstructions of literal events.
--------------------
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
I don't know why the question is being asked. Of course he does. For fundamentalists there is no such thing as poetic, theatrical, literary truth without all the metaphors being as immediately concrete as possible. Every character is real unless the divine character in the story says it's a story. And even then. So, Lazarus and Dives are real people. All, the people in the parables are real people. If push comes to shove. Jamat is the same yesterday, today and forever in this. He is not changing, he will not, can not change, only harden. All we can do is use him to refine our positions among ourselves apart from him, which is what has happened on this and related threads. No one here now can defend God knowing anything beyond the momentum of history, of material reality apart from by the intervention of the incarnation.
--------------------
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
quote:
poetic reconstructions of literal events.
That the Bible is literally God’s revelation to man is my only non-negotiable. That is because I continually experience its power. I do not like the word inerrant because it works mainly, it seems to me, on the mental or intellectual level. There are many other levels.
If you make empirical fact your main measure of stuff then You miss something. However, if you seek to dismiss empirical fact, then you take a dimension out of those levels that include it but are not defined by it.
I think I would not say that the Bible is God’s literal revelation to man but that as written above, that it is so, literally. That might seem like sleight of hand but it lifts the word ‘literally’ into where perhaps it is a better fit for the realities one might wish to describe.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'll take that as meaning that you do accept a degree of poetic reconstruction.
More to follow when I get time.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think 'saga' is a good way of putting it and the 'Animal Farm' analogy also holds.
Where I might part company with you, Steve, is the claim that the 'pedantic' may find some of the more poetic / saga / mythological material (myth in the C S Lewis sense) as 'errant'.
Something written by a 'Hebrew Shakespeare' can be true to the human condition and experience without having to be factually and literally accurate at all points.
As for literary elements in Acts, sure there are going to be less of those, perhaps, than in OT historiography, but there are still a substantial amount of them, as there is in any literature of this period - or any literature of whatever kind.
Jamat still hasn't told us whether he thinks Job or Jonah are poetic reconstructions of literal events.
You are, I think, illustrating my point that 'inerrancy' is a somewhat more slippery and less 'black and white' concept than is often portrayed - which is why I prefer to avoid it.
In terms of Luke's writings what I mean by 'literary devices' would not be a suggestion that Luke has in effect 'made up' anything in his account. But for example in Acts 24 Luke portrays an orator, Tertullus, brought in to make a case against Paul; and he reproduces the initial flourishes and compliments to the judge but then give what must be only a summary of the rest of the speech - a professional like Tertullus would certainly have said a lot more....
And is the poetry of the 'Magnificat' really exactly what Mary said in that conversation with her cousin Elizabeth - or is it a later poetic rendering of initially confused joyous emotions processed through meditation? Substantially accurate to the actual event, but not literal.
And is the 'Sermon on the Plain' (or its 'on the Mount' equivalent in Matthew) really a record of an actual sermon on a particular occasion, or is it rather the kind of thing that in a modern biography would probably be introduced by something like "Imagine this person came to your town - this is the kind of thing you might have heard...." That is, it's a 'framing device' to put in a lot of Jesus' words that Luke or Matthew had collected; authentic teaching, imaginary occasion....
And I still think a discussion of Daniel where one party holds to the 'Left Behind' view and others don't is going to be a discussion with lots of cross purposes.... From my viewpoint one group are probably too lax about Scripture while the guy who is trying to be exact has unfortunately made a massive misunderstanding...!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
By Jamat
quote:
I think I would not say that the Bible is God’s literal revelation to man but that as written above, that it is so, literally. That might seem like sleight of hand but it lifts the word ‘literally’ into where perhaps it is a better fit for the realities one might wish to describe.
My apologies to those who've seen it before, but here is "that" Tyndale quote again....
quote:
Tyndale on the ‘Literal Sense’
“Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way.
Nevertheless the scripture uses proverbs, similitudes, riddles or allegories, as all other speeches do; but that which the proverb, similitude, riddle or allegory signifieth, is ever the literal sense, which thou must seek out diligently.”
And a brief reminder that Tyndale is writing in the context of the old "Four-fold Sense" medieval interpretation in which the 'literal' sense was one of the four and as you can see from Tyndale's description did not mean a flat literalism but an idea that we might approximately express as 'reading Scripture like other books with allowance for figures of speech, literary devices, different genres, etc'. "As all other speeches do" means something like "That's the way human language works in general..."
Jamat, you've possibly not come across this one before; does it correspond at all to your views?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, Steve Langton, so how about when Luke tells us that Herod was struck down by an angel and then 'eaten by worms' and died ...
Do we take that literally?
It does seem from historical accounts that he suffered a sudden wasting illness, and there's been a lot of speculation as to what it might have been.
But are we to imagine an angel literally striking him down? How does Luke know? Did anyone see 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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, Steve Langton, so how about when Luke tells us that Herod was struck down by an angel and then 'eaten by worms' and died ...
Do we take that literally?
It does seem from historical accounts that he suffered a sudden wasting illness, and there's been a lot of speculation as to what it might have been.
But are we to imagine an angel literally striking him down? How does Luke know? Did anyone see it?
In those days illnesses that resulted in infestations of maggots or similar were I gather well-known though not common - usually also involving some kind of gangrene. Luke is I guess telling us that Herod's sudden fatal illness was a direct 'judgement of God' on his hubris. If you mean "Would anyone at the arena where Herod acted out his pride have seen an angel strike him down?" I guess not.
Short answer, I don't know. But also not too bothered about it. Luke won't have been an eyewitness here, we don't know where his sources probably in the Judean church got their information.
Plus this really belongs in the DH thread where I do intend to follow some of it up - here I'd rather stick to the Daniel issues as much as possible; I'm just trying to among other things discover what Jamat's parameters are here....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, so what we are dealing with is a 'natural' event which the early Christians interpreted in terms of divine judgement.
But yes, let's get back to Daniel and Jamat's parameters.
--------------------
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:
poetic reconstructions of literal events.
That the Bible is literally God’s revelation to man is my only non-negotiable. That is because I continually experience its power.
Jamat, I've answered you at greater length on the thread in Dead Horses; I think Steve is right that discussion beyond Daniel really belongs there.
--------------------
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
It may take a while but I've decided to explore the Daniel passage via Calvin's commentary - which has the advantage of being written before the early C19 prophetic enthusiasm. Wonder what I'll find...?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Jamat seems to be coming from the biblically dubious position of the "Rapture followed by 'third coming' followed by Millennium" idea which as far as I'm concerned is not true biblical interpretation anyway but the consequence of C19 mistakes
That is correct summation of the dispensational position. I would suggest it is clearly discernible from a reading of scripture that pretty well anyone can understand. Other readings seem to me to fall into the mire of hopeless confusion.
By the way, there is only a second coming. The rapture is a secret not a public event. The two roles of Messiah, suffering servant and king, were not discernible until they occurred but are clear in retrospect. Similarly, we have contradictory accounts of the second coming which I suspect will also be clear in retrospect.
Regarding 19 century mistakes, I do not think they were. I prefer to see what Darby did was elucidate a spectacular omission of the reformers who never dealt with the errors of Roman Catholic eschatology.
Finally, Steve, coming back to the topic, what do you make of Daniel’s 70th week? If Robert Andersen is correct that Jesus presented himself to the nation as Messiah precisely 69 sevens of 360 day years allowing for leap year days, after the decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus in 445 BC, that leaves a critical 7 week period of time yet to be fulfilled if once again, as Andersen suggests, the prophetic ‘clock’ ceased to tick from the point Israel rejected their Messiah.
I realise you probably do not accept the above assumptions as I do, but ..the 70th week? You cannot see that Daniel’s prophecy, so accurate in its first part, as yet fully fulfilled. Evvil is not yet dealt with fully and the kingdom of God not yet evident in any political sense. So what do you make of it?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jamat;
quote:
By the way, there is only a second coming. The rapture is a secret not a public event.
As is made clear by representations such as the 'Left Behind' books/films, the rapture of millions of people from earth can hardly be a 'secret' event. The explanation may be 'secret' to those who haven't heard of those books/films and all the similar ones; but it can't avoid being very public.
I'll come back to you on that one; and on Daniel though as I said, I'm going to check out Calvin first - not that I consider him infallible, just that I happen to have his commentary and it is probably a good guide to pre-Irving/Darby thinking.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jamat;
quote:
By the way, there is only a second coming. The rapture is a secret not a public event.
As is made clear by representations such as the 'Left Behind' books/films, the rapture of millions of people from earth can hardly be a 'secret' event. The explanation may be 'secret' to those who haven't heard of those books/films and all the similar ones; but it can't avoid being very public.
I'll come back to you on that one; and on Daniel though as I said, I'm going to check out Calvin first - not that I consider him infallible, just that I happen to have his commentary and it is probably a good guide to pre-Irving/Darby thinking.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It hardly matters if it's secret or open, since it's not real. It's a teaching of man, not of God. You might as well ask if the destruction of the One True Ring was secret or open, and try to base some point of Christian theology on that. You can't because it's not part of Christian revelation.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It only reads as a natural and clearly discerned way of approaching these issues if one chooses to read scripture in that particular way.
I was never convinced by the whole Dispensationalist thing when I first encountered it as a young evangelical convert. Even then I thought it was contrived and over-egged and that was before I was aware that there were evangelicals who took a different view.
It struck me that there appeared to be a correlation between the amount of time those who were into such speculations spent speculating and the amount of time they actually spent doing something useful ie. far, far more on the former than the latter.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It hardly matters if it's secret or open, since it's not real. It's a teaching of man, not of God. You might as well ask if the destruction of the One True Ring was secret or open, and try to base some point of Christian theology on that. You can't because it's not part of Christian revelation.
Obviously agreeing with you there, mt. I was just trying to point out to Jamat the - well, absurdity - of describing such an event as 'secret'. If it were real, the Rapture couldn't possibly be 'secret' in any meaningful way. The Rapture described in the NT is a decidedly public event.
BTW, when I was younger the 'Rapture' was generally described by its advocates as the 'second coming' of Jesus, which would make it simply accurate to refer to his later (supposed) return with the Church as a 'third coming'. I'm a bit puzzled that Jamat doesn't so regard it...?
One of the problems of that theology is that once you've come to believe it it kind of 'takes over' the whole Scripture as the advocates reinterpret everything else to fit their new idea - which is why I went back to the C19 roots to see if there was a misstep there, rather than trying to argue with the developed form of the idea. Fortunately there is an obvious misstep and once realised you don't really need to engage with the massive and potentially bewildering expansions which then followed.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Steve Langton: fortunately, there is an obvious misstep
Please explain what it was Steve.
Regarding the ’secret’ idea, dispensational theologians see the rapture of the church as only discernible after it occurs. Obviously, the disappearance of so many people will not be unobserved. They do not see this event as part of the second coming which will be seen by all when it occurs. In the second coming, Jesus returns physically to the earth; in the rapture he does not but appears in the sky to resurrect dead saints and call living ones home.
[ 11. February 2018, 11:23: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Briefly...!
The 'obvious misstep' occurred because in reacting (rightly) against an existing predominantly 'post-millennial' view (in Scotland), which made the Second Coming anything but urgent, Irving started preaching an extremely imminent Second Coming. Pretty much "It might be any second!" And this created a climate among his followers of thinking that you were only properly expecting Jesus' return if you were exactly expecting it any second.
Irving then also discovered the millennial speculations of 'Ben-Ezra', the pen-name actually of a Jesuit apparently, and started preaching pre- rather than post-millennialism.
However, when Irving's followers started exploring the prophetic Scriptures for further enlightenment, they began to find passages which as far as they could tell had not been fulfilled, yet did not fit in the millennium either. Where and how could these be fulfilled if the Second Coming must be expected 'any second now'?
Somehow - with apparently some guidance from a prophet in Irving's group (he had also attempted to revive charismatic gifts) Darby came up with the idea that the Second Coming would not be the immediate end but would be followed by the period of Tribulation and of the AntiChrist during which those prophecies would find fulfilment.
This is a misstep for all kinds of reasons. The most obvious, and very biblical, is the advice Paul gave to the Thessalonians who had in their day become over-enthusiastic about an imminent Return of Jesus. At that point he essentially told them that there were prophecies about the 'man of lawlessness' yet to be fulfilled and they could, without becoming totally complacent, scale back from 'Red Alert' to 'Amber Alert' till they saw those prophecies fulfilled. They would no longer be expecting an 'any second' Return - but it was perfectly proper to have such a level of expectation till things were clearer.
Applying that to the Darby situation, Darby could have resolved the situation of those unfulfilled prophecies in either of two legitimate ways - or indeed a combination of the two. He could have said that discovering those unfulfilled prophecies put them in the position of the Thessalonians, and they could somewhat relax their imminent expectation just as the Thessalonians did. Or he could have said that despite their best efforts, perhaps they had misunderstood the prophecies and the prophecies had in fact been fulfilled but not in the way the prophetic students had expected, so it was still possible the Return could be at any second.
Better still perhaps, he could have combined those options and said with caution that it seemed they might scale back that 'Red Alert'; but also be humble about possible interpretation mistakes, and say that if they had been mistaken the Return might still be imminent.
Incidentally, given that many of their interpretations named then current historical characters like Napoleon and Napoleon III, I think it's fair comment that the near two centuries gap since then shows that they were indeed mistaken in lots of those interpretations....
Instead Darby chose an option which left the prophecies unfulfilled, but still insisted on the belief in an 'any second' Return. The only way that could work in the ideas they'd already developed was to insert a 'left behind' period into the prophetic timetable in which there could be fulfilment, dividing the Second Coming into two stages, one 'for the Church/the Rapture', and the other to deal with everybody else.
In the state of artificially heightened expectation that had been created in the movement, this rapidly took off and spread and was particularly helped by the notes of the Schofield Bible which followed the scheme.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
A 'stand-out' moment for me at a conference I attended in 2002 was when a Presbyterian speaker from the US spontaneously joined forces with Dr Andrew Walker the sociologist (Pentecostal turned agnostic turned Orthodox) to debunk a set of questions 'from the floor' with a distinctly Dispensationalist flavour.
Rather than demonstrating that the Reformers failed to disengage themselves from the 'errors of Roman Catholic eschatology' (and yes, I know Orthodox aren't Roman Catholics), it showed how these older traditions were a lot smarter when it came to dealing with these issues than the Johnny-Come-Lately eschatological speculators of the 19th century.
I was convinced then, and even more convinced now, that Dispensationalism is a complete red-herring. Whether or not its harmful or harmless I leave others to decide.
For my part, I can't be doing with it because I find it a complete and utter waste of time.
--------------------
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: Somehow - with apparently some guidance from a prophet in Irving's group (he had also attempted to revive charismatic gifts) Darby came up with the idea that the Second Coming would not be the immediate end but would be followed by the period of Tribulation and of the AntiChrist during which those prophecies would find fulfilment.
This is a misstep for all kinds of reasons. The most obvious, and very biblical, is the advice Paul gave to the Thessalonians who had in their day become over-enthusiastic about an imminent Return of Jesus. At that point he essentially told them that there were prophecies about the 'man of lawlessness' yet to be fulfilled and they could, without becoming totally complacent, scale back from 'Red Alert' to 'Amber Alert' till they saw those prophecies fulfilled. They would no longer be expecting an 'any second' Return - but it was perfectly proper to have such a level of expectation till things were clearer.
Discussion of the influence of Edward Irving on JN Darby
Steve, I appreciate that the essence of what you posted here is reasonably accurate as to the shared ideas of Irving and Darby. There is a possibility that the two were thinking independently along similar lines but It is almost certain that even if that were true, Darby was reinforced in his thinking by reading Irving. (See the link posted.)
It seems though that the misstep you refer to is about the interpretation of 1 Thes 4:14-5:4. This is where I differ with you. The way I read that passage or would exegete it if you like, and the way Darby would have,is to see two clear scenarios at work.
In v15 of ch4 we have the rapture..an event in which dead saints are resurrected and live ones transformed to meet the Lord in the air. In 5:1;2 we have a reference to the ‘day of the Lord’. This latter reference is introduced by a contrastive phrase, ‘peri de’ that means ‘now,concerning and indicates a change of subject that is obvious in Greek but less so in the English translation.
This means of course that Paul is referring to the rapture then changes subject to discuss the day of the Lord as a separate thing. The confusion arises when the English translation seems to mash the two separate things together. In fact the rapture does not occur at the same time as and is not part of the’day of the Lord’
In other words, I would see this as a corrective understanding,not a misstep.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jamat;
quote:
This latter reference is introduced by a contrastive phrase, ‘peri de’ that means ‘now,concerning' and indicates a change of subject that is obvious in Greek but less so in the English translation.
(added an apostrophe there after 'concerning' - hope that was OK)
I'll be back a greater length later, but basically I think you're misapplying that contrastive.
Paul has spoken of a particular aspect of the Second Coming on which the Thessalonians needed reassurance; "What of those who die before then - who may indeed have already died? Will they miss out?"
Having dealt with that he does indeed move on to another issue - "But concerning the times and the seasons..." That is "But when will this happen?" So he's not contrasting the day of the Rapture with the 'day of the Lord'. He's contrasting "Now I've told you your dead friends are safe and will be with us that day..." with another aspect of "But when will it - the one event - happen?"
And he reminds them that it will be unexpected - though not surprising to believers. 'That day' will be 'like a thief in the night' in its unexpectedness, catastrophic to unbelievers. Though it will also be very public, of course....
I can see no reason in the text to make it refer to two separate days - that's not 'exegesis/reading out of', but 'eisegesis/reading in' something which itself must be brought to the text from elsewhere. And in this case not from elsewhere in the Scriptures, but from what I've called the misstep - which relates not to I Thess 4-5 but to II Thess 2.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Heh. I'll start worrying about taking Scripture literally when you lot decide what its literal meaning actually is...
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Steve Langton: basically I think you're misapplying that contrastive.
I am no Greek scholar and I get that from Fruchtenbaum who references it also in Matt24:36 which is even less discernible in English translation.
In that scripture, if you accept it as a separation, of subject, it completely clarifies the anomalies of that chapter. Essentially, Jesus deals with both the subject of the rapture and his second coming.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Will get back to you on Matt 24. But in I Thess, the issue is of what is being contrasted. Your claim is that the separate events of (your party's version of) the Rapture and (again your party's version of) the Second/Third coming are being contrasted.
However, as far as I can see, what is actually being contrasted by that 'but as to...' is on the one hand the Thessalonian Christians' concern that people who have already died might somehow miss the benefits of Jesus' coming, and on the other hand the issue of when that ONE SAME coming might be.
The text contains no hint of two separate events, years apart, unless you bring that in from elsewhere and force the text to conform to it.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Steve Langton : and (again your party's version of) the Second/Third coming are being contrasted.
No, I am not saying it speaks of the second coming but the 'day of the Lord'
This is an idiom for the last days judgement dispensationalists and premillennialists (who are dispensationalists) call 'the tribulation.'
The 'day of the Lord' is a time when God judges humanity via the reign of the 'man of sin'(see 2 Thes) before the second coming.. which sorts it all out
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Steve Langton : and (again your party's version of) the Second/Third coming are being contrasted.
No, I am not saying it speaks of the second coming but the 'day of the Lord'
This is an idiom for the last days judgement dispensationalists and premillennialists (who are dispensationalists) call 'the tribulation.'
The 'day of the Lord' is a time when God judges humanity via the reign of the 'man of sin'(see 2 Thes) before the second coming.. which sorts it all out
So to clarify;
I believe that after all prophecies for this age have been fulfilled, Jesus returns again exactly once.
At that time dead believers will rise and will join believers still living in being 'caught up/raptured' to meet the Lord 'in the air' and accompany his triumphant and very public return.
This will be followed by the general resurrection, the Last Judgement, and the 'new heavens and new earth'.
In your version the Rapture means that Jesus returns seen only by believers and resurrected believers who are taken out of the world for the next seven years.
The 'day of the Lord' is not a single day but refers to the whole 'tribulation' period, that seven years of the rule of the man of lawlessness.
After that Jesus returns seen by all to initiate his millennial rule on earth - and that in your party's terms is regarded as the 'Second Coming'. The millennial rule is still over an unrenewed earth and ends in a final battle with Satan's forces, and only after that comes the Judgement and the renewal of all things.
Hmmmm!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
By Steve Langton
quote:
In your version the Rapture means that Jesus returns seen only by believers and resurrected believers who are taken out of the world for the next seven years.
No, in this scenario, he cannot be said to have returned. Actually, what happens is the believers disappear. In all probability, the first thing non Christians will know about it will be when they notice people have gone.
It does say that the Lord descends from heaven with a shout from the archangel and there must be a sound of the trumpet of God, 1Thes 4:16 but this seems to be a sound only true believers and the ‘dead in Christ’ hear. If he was returning at that stage to earth, then it is hard to see why believers meet him in the air.
The second coming of Christ to earth has to be an international event everyone witnesses. He returns to rescue the remnant of Israel at the climax at the battle of Armageddon. His feet touch the mount of olives..as he left,so he comes back ..Zechariah 14:4 Acts1:9-12.
[ 19. February 2018, 07:08: 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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Wow! Went down this morning, made a cup of tea for my wife AND SHE'S NOT HERE!!!
Daren't put on the radio.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
A long time ago I got a lift with a US missionary in Marseille. Sitting on the passenger side, I was confronted with a large rapture-themed sticker beginning "Warning: the driver of this car may disappear at any time".
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
