Bible Scavenger Hunt
Comments
-
I wasn't directing that toward you.
-
@Mitchell said:
@Dave_L said:
Find the "Daniel gap" directly mentioned in scripture, not merely read into it, and you can make all this go away.What is the Daniel gap?
Are you referring division(gap) between the Hebrew text found in chapter 1 and the Aramaic text spanning from chapter 2 to 7, with the Masoretic text reverting back to classical Hebrew from chapter 8 till the end of the book?
By the way, I traditional do not regard the book of Daniel as a book of prophecy but rather as belonging to the Hagiographa and or Ketuvim (the writings).
If you do not know, count yourself lucky. It's complicated.
-
@Wolfgang said:
The problem is a different one ... Scripture does NOWHERE teach that there are three persons in the one GodExactly, that isn't stated in canonical Scripture at all, but rather in the later tradition and interpretations of Latin writers from the 3rd century onward most notably Tertullian.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
It is obvious there is a problem here unless we have three distinct persons in the one God. Stop thinking of God materialistically and expand to unlimited spiritual possibilities.The problem is a different one ... Scripture does NOWHERE teach that there are three persons in the one God
"Persons" is the closest term we have. But the Father, Son and Holy Spirit exist as "I" "He" "You" which expands the One God into three persons. But direct quotes from scripture prove this to Christendom in general.
-
According to Wikipedia's article on Trinity:
While "personae" is often translated as "persons," the Latin word personae is better understood as referring to roles as opposed to individual centers of consciousness.
-
@Mitchell said:
According to Wikipedia's article on Trinity:While "personae" is often translated as "persons," the Latin word personae is better understood as referring to roles as opposed to individual centers of consciousness.
That's not in the bible..........
-
Where do your (Dispensationalist) end-times doctrines come from?
“As part of the Counter Reformation, the Catholic Church commissioned Jesuit priests to write counter interpretations of Bible prophecy as a counter response to the Protestant reformation when the finger was pointed at them as being antichrist. Spanish Jesuit, Francisco Ribera proposed that the final seven years of Daniel’s 70 weeks was a future antichrist and that antichrist would bring an end to sacrifices in a rebuilt temple. This is where the supposed 7 years of tribulation comes from before the second coming of Christ. But this was manufactured prophecy, written with the sole purpose of deceiving Christians on the true identity of antichrist. When has a Bible passage ever been so abused by Satan? Attributing Daniel’s 70th week of Jesus’ baptism and crucifixion and applying it instead to antichrist is outright blasphemous.” (Taken from Daniells70weeks.com) Verified by Clarence Larkin Dispensational Truth. P 4-5.
-
In light of other posts before, it seems Dave_L is referring to the gap which theologians place between the 69th and the 70th week in the 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel
-
@Dave_L said:
That's not in the bible..........Precisely! Neither the Latin term Trinity nor the term Personae appears in the Masoretic Text nor the Greek text NT. It is for that reason one must turn elsewhere to find the definitions and history of those terms.
-
But, the concept of one God with three distinct centers of will called Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is.
-
@Mitchell said:
@Dave_L said:
Find the "Daniel gap" directly mentioned in scripture, not merely read into it, and you can make all this go away.What is the Daniel gap?
Are you referring division(gap) between the Hebrew text found in chapter 1 and the Aramaic text spanning from chapter 2 to 7, with the Masoretic text reverting back to classical Hebrew from chapter 8 till the end of the book?
By the way, I traditional do not regard the book of Daniel as a book of prophecy but rather as belonging to the Hagiographa and or Ketuvim (the writings).
Let's be clear:
Prophets and the Writings, or the Hagiographa—the 3 divisions of the OT according to the Hebrew canon (see Lk 24:44).- Codex No.4 (Ginsburg No. 60) --1299 -- Prophets and Hagiographa --Vienna Imperial and Royal Library
The Jews of ancient days regarded the Old Testament as comprising three parts:
• Moses
• The Prophets
• The Psalms (Luke 24:44):- The Psalms are divided into five books, each one of which ends with an
appropriate concluding doxology: Pss 1-41, 42-72, 73-89, 90-106, and 106-150.
We might think of these sections as:
- The Pentateuch (the five books of Moses)
- The Prophets (Joshua to Malachi)
- The Hagiographa a.ka. “sacred books” -- “The Holy Writings" (Hagiographa) comprising:
- Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra [including Nehemiah], and Chronicles
- The smaller books, Ezra, Nehemiah, and even Daniel and Chronicles.
- The Writings forms the third major division of the Hebrew Scriptures. In some books this division is called by the Greek name Hagiographa, meaning “sacred books.”
In sum, the well-known Jewish tripartite division of the Old Testament is made up of
- (1) the Law, or Torah
- (2) the Prophets, or Nebiim
- (3) the Writings, or Kathubim, which in Greek were called Hagiographa.
In this Jewish classification of the books of the Bible we note that Daniel is placed not among the prophets but among the writings of the Kathubim, or Hagiographa, whereas in the Septuagint and in the Latin Vulgate it is placed among the Major Prophets, just as in the modern Protestant and Catholic versions of the Bible. Because of this those who maintain that the tripartite division of the canon represents the chronological order of canonization, also claim that Daniel is of late origin, as the prophetical part of the canon had been closed. However—
- "it is more probable, that the book was placed in this part of the Heb. Canon, because Daniel is not called a nabhi (prophet!), but was rather a hozeh (seer') and a hakhaim (wise man'). None but the works of the nebhi'im were put in the second part of the Jewish Canon, the third being reserved for the heterogeneous works of seers, wise men, and priests, or for those that do not_ mention the name or work of a prophet, or that are poetical in form. . . .
- "Some have attempted to explain the position of Daniel by assuming that he had the prophetic gift without holding the prophetic office. It must be kept in mind that all reasons given to account for the order and place of many of the books in the Canon are purely conjectural since we have no historical evidence bearing upon the subject earlier than the time of Jesus ben Sirach, who wrote probably about 180 B.C."
SOURCE:
*-- R. Dick Wilson, "Daniel, Book of," The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, vol. 2, p. 783.********************************************************************
Christian theologians from the earliest centuries regarded the Book of Daniel as a prophecy originating during the exile. This prophecy divided history into four periods: the Babylonian, the Median-Persian, the Hellenistic and the Roman period. Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 served as support for these ideas.
Jerome claimed that the book was indeed a prophecy from the sixth century BCE. He believed that the rock that crumbled the statue (Dn 2) should be linked to the birth of Jesus and the coming of the kingdom.
The philosopher Porphyry (270–320) attacked this interpretation of the Book of Daniel and argued that the book had not been written during the sixth century but rather during the second century BCE (See Casey). He called the book a “forgery”, a view that was criticised by the Christian theologian Jerome.
Luther believed, the Book of Daniel, which he took to be a prophecy about Jesus and the end times. For Luther, the Book of Daniel was very important because it gave him a thorough knowledge of the history of the world and of the Church (See Raeder). One could say that, during the Reformation, the Book of Daniel was central to the thinking of many believers in their struggles with the Roman Catholic Church.
The early colonizers view the Book of Daniel as a prophecy was kept alive as was the conviction that people were living in the end times and that the second coming of Christ was at hand. During the greater part of the history of its interpretation or reception, the book of Daniel was understood as a prophetic book.
All of these are the pre-critical reading from the Book of Daniel. CM
PS. See my upcoming thread on the Book of Daniel
SOURCES:
- -- Casey, P.M. 1976. Porphyry and the Origin of the Book of Daniel. Journal of Theological Studies 27, 15–33.
- -- Raeder, S. 2008. The exegetical and hermeneutical work of Martin Luther, in Sæbø 2008:363–406.
-
> @Dave_L said:
> But, the concept of one God with three distinct centers of will called Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is.
Then concept of one God is clearly stated a number of times. The Bible states that is Holy and that God is spirit of course God is not simply ‘a’ but is the Holy Spirit. The Bible says nothing explicitly about ‘centers’ of God or at least the word ‘centers’ referring to God does not appear in the Bible I accept. The Bible of course calls different individuals sons of God and the NT calls Jesus the son of God. However, no one verse goes into any detail clearly stating and explaining a concept similar to Trinity. -
@Mitchell said:
> @Dave_L said:
> But, the concept of one God with three distinct centers of will called Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is.
Then concept of one God is clearly stated a number of times. The Bible states that is Holy and that God is spirit of course God is not simply ‘a’ but is the Holy Spirit. The Bible says nothing explicitly about ‘centers’ of God or at least the word ‘centers’ referring to God does not appear in the Bible I accept. The Bible of course calls different individuals sons of God and the NT calls Jesus the son of God. However, no one verse goes into any detail clearly stating and explaining a concept similar to Trinity.@Dave_L let me be clear. YES the Trinity is clearly taught in Scripture, but not directly with specific verses. You have to piece it together just like end time prophecy.
-
Not so ... the Trinity dogma is not at all taught in Scripture, it is solely an extra-biblical, non-biblical concept of a "multi-person Godhead", which in reality amounts to "multi-Gods". Since just about no one understanding simple and basic truths of the Bible would accept such an idea as true, the proponents have declared this devil's doctrine to be a mystery beyond human comprehension and these "three Gods" are really "three personas" but only "one God"
The dilemma with the manifold end time prophecy interpretations is also based on people not reading what is written in Scripture, but rather following fantasy ideas not found and at time flat out contradicting what the text of Scripture states.
-
@Wolfgang said:
"The dilemma with the manifold end time prophecy interpretations is also based on people not reading what is written in Scripture, but rather following fantasy ideas not found and at time flat out contradicting what the text of Scripture states".
The words above, as one can clearly see, are from Wolfgang are against the Trinity. When they are, rightly, reapplied to Dave's questions, they fit well like hands and gloves.
@Dave_L said:
Does scripture directly support any of today’s most popular doctrines?- > The 7 year tribulation?
- > The pre-trib rapture?
- > The restored Roman Empire?
- > The rebuilt Temple?
- > The return to animal sacrifices?
- > Russia marching on Israel?
- > A Gap between Daniel’s 69th and 70th weeks?
These "popular doctrines" exist solely to continue the "The Counter-reformation (a.k.a) -- "Counter-Reformation Roman Catholicism". When it's all said and done, the so-called "popular doctrines" were to distract and distort. Several Jesuit scholars undertook the task of defending the papacy against Protestants attacks. In their quest to dismantle the Bible prophecy of Dan 9, particularly, the 70 weeks, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542- 1621), head of the Jesuit College in Rome, sought to nullify the prophetic year-day principle as proof for the 1,260 years of papal rule. And, on the other hand, the Spanish Jesuit, Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) projected the antichrist prophecies into the future (futurism).
Cardinal Bellarmine, 1542-1621, Italian, combated Protestant claims that pope was the antichrist. Counter-Reformation had checked Protestantism in Europe. Bellarmine's chief attack was on the year-day principle of prophecy. He paved the way for present futurist teachings, by applying apocalyptic symbols to future. He used the “Gap Theory” - 70th week of Daniel 9 was separated from 69th week and placed just before the end of the world. To grasp the earliest known opposition to the Year-day Principle, one has to go back to the medieval Catholics like Joachim of Floris (c. 1135- 1201), one-time abbot of the Cistercian Abbey at Corazzo, Italy.
So, in sum, the renewed discussion of the Trinity here (participants positions are well stated), after numerous thread/posts around the forums, is a distraction to prevent Dispensationalist's underbelly from being exposed. Could it be that the "popular doctrines" have been around so long, and permeated so many denominations, it has become like some US Banks: "too big to fail"? Has Dispensationalism become too entrenched, into too many belief systems, in too many places, and over too many years; it has become too large and adopted to correct? Even without biblical support?
Dave, I wonder why no one is answering questions the "popular doctrines" of Dispensationalism? Could it be that below Dispensationalism long years and wide-spread teaching lies religious bankruptcy? Let study with humility. CM
PS. See my thread on "Rapture- A Background for Consideration (Compiled by CM)"
-
@C_M_ said:
@Wolfgang said:
"The dilemma with the manifold end time prophecy interpretations is also based on people not reading what is written in Scripture, but rather following fantasy ideas not found and at time flat out contradicting what the text of Scripture states".
The words above, as one can clearly see, are from Wolfgang are against the Trinity. When they are, rightly, reapplied to Dave's questions, they fit well like hands and gloves.
@Dave_L said:
Does scripture directly support any of today’s most popular doctrines?The 7 year tribulation?
The pre-trib rapture?
The restored Roman Empire?
The rebuilt Temple?
The return to animal sacrifices?
Russia marching on Israel?
A Gap between Daniel’s 69th and 70th weeks?
These "popular doctrines" exist solely to continue the "The Counter-reformation (a.k.a) -- "Counter-Reformation Roman Catholicism". When it's all said and done, the so-called "popular doctrines" were to distract and distort. Several Jesuit scholars undertook the task of defending the papacy against Protestants attacks. In their quest to dismantle the Bible prophecy of Dan 9, particularly, the 70 weeks, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542- 1621), head of the Jesuit College in Rome, sought to nullify the prophetic year-day principle as proof for the 1,260 years of papal rule. And, on the other hand, the Spanish Jesuit, Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) projected the antichrist prophecies into the future (futurism).
Cardinal Bellarmine, 1542-1621, Italian, combated Protestant claims that pope was the antichrist. Counter-Reformation had checked Protestantism in Europe. Bellarmine's chief attack was on the year-day principle of prophecy. He paved the way for present futurist teachings, by applying apocalyptic symbols to future. He used the “Gap Theory” - 70th week of Daniel 9 was separated from 69th week and placed just before the end of the world. To grasp the earliest known opposition to the Year-day Principle, one has to go back to the medieval Catholics like Joachim of Floris (c. 1135- 1201), one-time abbot of the Cistercian Abbey at Corazzo, Italy.
So, in sum, the renewed discussion of the Trinity here (participants positions are well stated), after numerous thread/posts around the forums, is a distraction to prevent Dispensationalist's underbelly from being exposed. Could it be that the "popular doctrines" have been around so long, and permeated so many denominations, it has become like some US Banks: "too big to fail"? Has Dispensationalism become too entrenched, into too many belief systems, in too many places, and over too many years; it has become too large and adopted to correct? Even without biblical support?
Dave, I wonder why no one is answering questions the "popular doctrines" of Dispensationalism? Could it be that below Dispensationalism long years and wide-spread teaching lies religious bankruptcy? Let study with humility. CM
PS. See my thread on "Rapture- A Background for Consideration (Compiled by CM)"
Great work. I copied it earlier for my notes. Thanks!
-
@Wolfgang said:
Not so ... the Trinity dogma is not at all taught in Scripture, it is solely an extra-biblical, non-biblical concept of a "multi-person Godhead", which in reality amounts to "multi-Gods". Since just about no one understanding simple and basic truths of the Bible would accept such an idea as true, the proponents have declared this devil's doctrine to be a mystery beyond human comprehension and these "three Gods" are really "three personas" but only "one God"
The dilemma with the manifold end time prophecy interpretations is also based on people not reading what is written in Scripture, but rather following fantasy ideas not found and at time flat out contradicting what the text of Scripture states.
The point is the end time doctrines, not the trinity.
-
Dave,
For one to answer the questions in the OP, he must be aware and understand that all the answers are based on presuppositions and interpretations. One must look to preterists and futurists school of interpretations to understand the "gap theory". The time elements in these prophecies are view as literal time. Historicist commentators, on the other hand, have interpreted these references as symbolically representing longer periods of historical time. In short, this explains but definitely doesn't justify, the "gap theory".The bottom line is that the use of Preterism and Futurism, which largely come out of the Counter-Reformation, as well as Idealism, a development based on Origen’s allegorization [“anything could be arbitrarily made to mean anything else”], are going to put one on the wrong side of truth. CM
These schools of interpretations exist to combated Protestant claims that the Pope was the antichrist. It's worth repeating. Please note the spreading of interpretations:
- Robert Bellarmine (1542- 1621)--sought to nullify the prophetic year-day principle as proof for the 1,260 years of papal rule.
The Spanish Jesuit, Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) -- projected the antichrist prophecies into the future (Futurism-[not yet]).
- Ribera applied the antichrist prophecies to a future personal antichrist who would appear in the time of the end and continue in power for three and a half years.
- For nearly three centuries, futurism was largely confined to the Roman Catholic Church, until in 1826 Samuel R. Maitland (1792-1866), librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
- Soon other Protestant clergymen turned to futurism and began propagating it far and wide. Among them were John Henry Newman, leader of the Oxford movement, who later became a Roman Catholic cardinal, and Edward Irving, the famous Scottish Presbyterian minister.
Spaniard, Luis de Alcazar (1554-1613), contended that these prophecies were already fulfilled in the time of the Roman Empire (Preterism-[past]).
- Alcazar's preterism was soon adopted by the Calvinist Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) in Holland, and in time became the favorite method for the interpretation of biblical prophecy among liberal theologians.
The best way to resolve this theological disparity between the significance of literal time in classical prophecy and interpreting time in apocalyptic as literal is to interpret the time units in the latter as symbolic rather than literal.
The Rapture Theory is based on a number of assumptions. Let me cite just two:
- (1) The seventieth week of the seventy-week prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 is still future.
- (2) The church will not go through the great tribulation.
The idea that Daniel's seventieth week is still future first surfaced in the writings of Irenaeus (second century A.D.), it played no significant role in Christian theology until it became a foundational pillar of dispensationalism in the nineteenth century. Speaking of the antichrist Irenaeus says, Daniel...
- "points out the time that this tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: 'And in the midst of the week,' he says, The sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple . Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.'"
IN MY VIEW:
- There is no logical or exegetical reason for separating the seventieth week from the other sixty-nine weeks. There is no other time prophecy in Scripture which has such a gap (see below Pentecost). None of the supposed prophecies with gaps listed by Pentecost are time prophecies. All are based on the idea that Old Testament prophecies concerning Israel must be literally fulfilled to Israel in the future.
- The subject of Daniel 9:26 and 27, is the Messiah, and not the antichrist. According to the verse pattern in Daniel 9:25, 26, the prince in "the people of the prince" can also refer to Jesus. Is not all three references are to the same Messiah Prince?
- But even if the prince in verse 26 refers to Titus (as a type of the antichrist) and not to the Messiah, he is not the subject of verse 27 because grammatically he is in a subordinate position to "the people." It is the people who destroy the city and the sanctuary, not the prince. The "he" of verse 27 must refer back to the Messiah at the beginning of verse 26.
The fulfillment of the seventieth week of Daniel's 70-week prophecy is still future. It is based on unbiblical presuppositions. The Rapture Theory has captured the imagination of millions of sincere Christians is contrary to the Bible's teaching.
Is this clear? CM
PS.
The one, in CD, who wrote: "... My goal is to point out the veracity that Dispensationalism is not a 19th-century innovation as the uninformed writers above keep spewing out in spectacular ignorance", may have done so, prematurity. I hope he would reconsider who are the "uninformed writers...spewing out in spectacular ignorance". Dispensationalism goes deep (far back) and wide (millions of sincere Christians), over many lands. Keep studying for the whole truth. CMSOURCES:
*-- Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5.25.3, (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:554).
*-- J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958). 247. -
@C_M_ said:
Dave,
For one to answer the questions in the OP, he must be aware and understand that all the answers are based on presuppositions and interpretations. One must look to preterists and futurists school of interpretations to understand the "gap theory". The time elements in these prophecies are view as literal time. Historicist commentators, on the other hand, have interpreted these references as symbolically representing longer periods of historical time. In short, this explains but definitely doesn't justify, the "gap theory".The bottom line is that the use of Preterism and Futurism, which largely come out of the Counter-Reformation, as well as Idealism, a development based on Origen’s allegorization [“anything could be arbitrarily made to mean anything else”], are going to put one on the wrong side of truth. CM
These schools of interpretations exist to combated Protestant claims that the Pope was the antichrist. It's worth repeating. Please note the spreading of interpretations:
- Robert Bellarmine (1542- 1621)--sought to nullify the prophetic year-day principle as proof for the 1,260 years of papal rule.
The Spanish Jesuit, Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) -- projected the antichrist prophecies into the future (Futurism-[not yet]).
- Ribera applied the antichrist prophecies to a future personal antichrist who would appear in the time of the end and continue in power for three and a half years.
- For nearly three centuries, futurism was largely confined to the Roman Catholic Church, until in 1826 Samuel R. Maitland (1792-1866), librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
- Soon other Protestant clergymen turned to futurism and began propagating it far and wide. Among them were John Henry Newman, leader of the Oxford movement, who later became a Roman Catholic cardinal, and Edward Irving, the famous Scottish Presbyterian minister.
Spaniard, Luis de Alcazar (1554-1613), contended that these prophecies were already fulfilled in the time of the Roman Empire (Preterism-[past]).
- Alcazar's preterism was soon adopted by the Calvinist Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) in Holland, and in time became the favorite method for the interpretation of biblical prophecy among liberal theologians.
The best way to resolve this theological disparity between the significance of literal time in classical prophecy and interpreting time in apocalyptic as literal is to interpret the time units in the latter as symbolic rather than literal.
The Rapture Theory is based on a number of assumptions. Let me cite just two:
- (1) The seventieth week of the seventy-week prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 is still future.
- (2) The church will not go through the great tribulation.
The idea that Daniel's seventieth week is still future first surfaced in the writings of Irenaeus (second century A.D.), it played no significant role in Christian theology until it became a foundational pillar of dispensationalism in the nineteenth century. Speaking of the antichrist Irenaeus says, Daniel...
- "points out the time that this tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: 'And in the midst of the week,' he says, The sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple . Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.'"
IN MY VIEW:
- There is no logical or exegetical reason for separating the seventieth week from the other sixty-nine weeks. There is no other time prophecy in Scripture which has such a gap (see below Pentecost). None of the supposed prophecies with gaps listed by Pentecost are time prophecies. All are based on the idea that Old Testament prophecies concerning Israel must be literally fulfilled to Israel in the future.
- The subject of Daniel 9:26 and 27, is the Messiah, and not the antichrist. According to the verse pattern in Daniel 9:25, 26, the prince in "the people of the prince" can also refer to Jesus. Is not all three references are to the same Messiah Prince?
- But even if the prince in verse 26 refers to Titus (as a type of the antichrist) and not to the Messiah, he is not the subject of verse 27 because grammatically he is in a subordinate position to "the people." It is the people who destroy the city and the sanctuary, not the prince. The "he" of verse 27 must refer back to the Messiah at the beginning of verse 26.
The fulfillment of the seventieth week of Daniel's 70-week prophecy is still future. It is based on unbiblical presuppositions. The Rapture Theory has captured the imagination of millions of sincere Christians is contrary to the Bible's teaching.
Is this clear? CM
PS.
The one, in CD, who wrote: "... My goal is to point out the veracity that Dispensationalism is not a 19th-century innovation as the uninformed writers above keep spewing out in spectacular ignorance", may have done so, prematurity. I hope he would reconsider who are the "uninformed writers...spewing out in spectacular ignorance". Dispensationalism goes deep (far back) and wide (millions of sincere Christians), over many lands. Keep studying for the whole truth. CMSOURCES:
*-- Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5.25.3, (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:554).
*-- J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958). 247.The rapture is not contrary to biblical teaching.
-
@reformed said:
The rapture is not contrary to biblical teaching.Mr. Reformed,
Just in case you missed it:CM said: The fulfillment of the seventieth week of Daniel's 70-week prophecy is still future. It is based on unbiblical presuppositions. The Rapture Theory has captured the imagination of millions of sincere Christians is contrary to the Bible's teaching.
If you disagree with this, make your case, I am opened to learn. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
The rapture is not contrary to biblical teaching.Mr. Reformed,
Just in case you missed it:CM said: The fulfillment of the seventieth week of Daniel's 70-week prophecy is still future. It is based on unbiblical presuppositions. The Rapture Theory has captured the imagination of millions of sincere Christians is contrary to the Bible's teaching.
If you disagree with this, make your case, I am opened to learn. CM
It's been done multiple times on this forum.
Matt 24:30-31
1 Cor. 15:51-53
1 Thessalonians 4:16-18
Luke 17:34-37
Mark 13:24-27 -
@reformed said:
The rapture is not contrary to biblical teaching.Well ... what do you understand "the rapture" to be? Is the rapture something as assumed by many Christians (sort of like was expressed by bumper stickers years ago which read "Careful, at the rapture this vehicle will be without a driver") ? or something else perhaps?
Most important, on what scripture do you base your above claim?? -
> @Dave_L said:
> Does scripture directly support any of today’s most popular doctrines?
What, are today's most popular doctrines?
> The 7 year tribulation?
Never heard of the 7 tribulations
> The pre-trib rapture?
The word rapture does not appear in the scriptures I use
> The restored Roman Empire?
Never heard nor encountered this doctrine.
But, this seems highly unlikely. I could imagine that some could claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the spiritual successor to the Roman Empire.
> The rebuilt Temple?
Impossible. According to Jewish tradition, the temple can only be built in one place and that place is occupied by a Moslem Mosque.
> The return to animal sacrifices?
No, Scripture does not support this. Someone or group of individuals might attempt grain and animal sacrifices, though, but I believe it would be meaningless.
> Russia marching on Israel?
In the modern state of Israel, there are 300,000 or more individuals of Russian heritage many non-religious. So, Russia has already marched and is marching in the modern state of Israel.
> A Gap between Daniel’s 69th and 70th weeks?
The above is an interpretation of the Bible, not something that is actually taught in Scripture.
None of the above-said doctrines appear to be popular in my area or at least I do not recall running across anyone espouses those beliefs. -
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
The rapture is not contrary to biblical teaching.Well ... what do you understand "the rapture" to be? Is the rapture something as assumed by many Christians (sort of like was expressed by bumper stickers years ago which read "Careful, at the rapture this vehicle will be without a driver") ? or something else perhaps?
Most important, on what scripture do you base your above claim??When the saved are caught up. See the vereses I posted above.
-
@Mitchell said:
> @Dave_L said:
> Does scripture directly support any of today’s most popular doctrines?
What, are today's most popular doctrines?
> The 7 year tribulation?
Never heard of the 7 tribulations
> The pre-trib rapture?
The word rapture does not appear in the scriptures I use
> The restored Roman Empire?
Never heard nor encountered this doctrine.
But, this seems highly unlikely. I could imagine that some could claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the spiritual successor to the Roman Empire.
> The rebuilt Temple?
Impossible. According to Jewish tradition, the temple can only be built in one place and that place is occupied by a Moslem Mosque.
> The return to animal sacrifices?
No, Scripture does not support this. Someone or group of individuals might attempt grain and animal sacrifices, though, but I believe it would be meaningless.
> Russia marching on Israel?
In the modern state of Israel, there are 300,000 or more individuals of Russian heritage many non-religious. So, Russia has already marched and is marching in the modern state of Israel.
> A Gap between Daniel’s 69th and 70th weeks?
The above is an interpretation of the Bible, not something that is actually taught in Scripture.
None of the above-said doctrines appear to be popular in my area or at least I do not recall running across anyone espouses those beliefs.Mitchell,
Popular or not, the doctrines are not supported by the Bible. You have rightly concluded that the wide-spread (by many denominations) and the not-so-"popular doctrines" (where you live) are "an interpretation" what some says, what they think or want "the Bible" to say. Keep studying, let truth reign. CMPS. See my posts above on this topic and around the forums on these so-called "popular doctrines". CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@Mitchell said:
> @Dave_L said:
> Does scripture directly support any of today’s most popular doctrines?
What, are today's most popular doctrines?
> The 7 year tribulation?
Never heard of the 7 tribulations
> The pre-trib rapture?
The word rapture does not appear in the scriptures I use
> The restored Roman Empire?
Never heard nor encountered this doctrine.
But, this seems highly unlikely. I could imagine that some could claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the spiritual successor to the Roman Empire.
> The rebuilt Temple?
Impossible. According to Jewish tradition, the temple can only be built in one place and that place is occupied by a Moslem Mosque.
> The return to animal sacrifices?
No, Scripture does not support this. Someone or group of individuals might attempt grain and animal sacrifices, though, but I believe it would be meaningless.
> Russia marching on Israel?
In the modern state of Israel, there are 300,000 or more individuals of Russian heritage many non-religious. So, Russia has already marched and is marching in the modern state of Israel.
> A Gap between Daniel’s 69th and 70th weeks?
The above is an interpretation of the Bible, not something that is actually taught in Scripture.
None of the above-said doctrines appear to be popular in my area or at least I do not recall running across anyone espouses those beliefs.Mitchell,
Popular or not, the doctrines are not supported by the Bible. You have rightly concluded that the wide-spread (by many denominations) and the not-so-"popular doctrines" (where you live) are "an interpretation" what some says, what they think or want "the Bible" to say. Keep studying, let truth reign. CMPS. See my posts above on this topic and around the forums on these so-called "popular doctrines". CM
Except most of them, not sure about a couple, but the main tenents of dispensationalism with regard to end times ARE supported by the Bible.
Here's the thing, you really shouldn't be dogmatic about End Times theology anyway. Nobody knows with 100% certainty.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
The rapture is not contrary to biblical teaching.Well ... what do you understand "the rapture" to be? Is the rapture something as assumed by many Christians (sort of like was expressed by bumper stickers years ago which read "Careful, at the rapture this vehicle will be without a driver") ? or something else perhaps?
Most important, on what scripture do you base your above claim??Wolfgang,
I believe your friend, Reformed, has to do better than hurl a handful of texts to the winds and expect the "popular doctrines," that have been debunked, to be received as biblical truth. You asked a legitimate question:Is the rapture something as assumed by many Christians (sort of like was expressed by bumper stickers years ago which read "Careful, at the rapture this vehicle will be without a driver") ? or something else perhaps?
I think I know what word he's leaning on, but I would let him speak first and for himself. I remain. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
The rapture is not contrary to biblical teaching.Well ... what do you understand "the rapture" to be? Is the rapture something as assumed by many Christians (sort of like was expressed by bumper stickers years ago which read "Careful, at the rapture this vehicle will be without a driver") ? or something else perhaps?
Most important, on what scripture do you base your above claim??Wolfgang,
I believe your friend, Reformed, has to do better than hurl a handful of texts to the winds and expect the "popular doctrines," that have been debunked, to be received as biblical truth. You asked a legitimate question:Is the rapture something as assumed by many Christians (sort of like was expressed by bumper stickers years ago which read "Careful, at the rapture this vehicle will be without a driver") ? or something else perhaps?
I think I know what word he's leaning on, but I would let him speak first and for himself. I remain. CM
I stand beside the Scriptures I put forth. One will remain standing while the other vanishes. If that were to happen in modern day, what do you think would happen? OBVIOUSLY cars without drivers etc...
-
@reformed said:
Here's the thing, you really shouldn't be dogmatic about End Times theology anyway. Nobody knows with 100% certainty.Very well said and I think that could be extended to apply to a whole lot more than end time theology. In my opinion, way too much division in the Church has been caused because of different beliefs regarding the nonessentials of faith.
-
@Mitchell said:
@reformed said:
Here's the thing, you really shouldn't be dogmatic about End Times theology anyway. Nobody knows with 100% certainty.Very well said and I think that could be extended to apply to a whole lot more than end time theology. In my opinion, way too much division in the Church has been caused because of different beliefs regarding the nonessentials of faith.
Mitchell,
I am not inclined to agree with you and Mr. Reformed on your points above.@reformed said: "Here's the thing, you really shouldn't be dogmatic about End Times theology anyway. Nobody knows with 100% certainty".
Here is what one can be certain about:
- God is.
- He reveals Himself in general and special revelations (Bible/Christ).
- The Bible is God "breathed" inspired.
- We have a sure word of prophecy.
- Jesus is the Christ, died for the redemption of man.
- He was crucified, died, buried, resurrected, ascended and will come again. (John 14:1-3).
- The return of Christ is certain, visible, and literal. It will be a multi-sensory experience for all (dead in Christ/those alive at his appearing).
- God has given us His Word and insights to encourage faith and to hold fast until he comes.
- As for the end time events, what God has revealed is for us to know (Deut 29:29). Don't doubt God, his word or his revelation.
- God is not a car salesperson (bait/switch) or some heavenly charlatan. Especially, take note of the Book of Revelation, in light of the endtime. It can be understood in light of the endtime. It's by Jesus, about Jesus.
- It is only when we focus the endtime events, excluding Christ. When it comes to the endtime events, we need focus on Christ, not the crisis. Christ knew that many would do this. Jesus reassured his presence disciple future ones.
Dispensationalism is a deviation from the revealed Word of God, It's based on unbiblical presuppositions and distracting interpretations. History (the Counter-Reformation/proponents), context (language, immediate and intermediate) and Bible-prophecies ("Classical/"apocalyptic"). One can be uncertain about what has not been shown, but not about what God has revealed. If there be any uncertainties, it's man-made due to a like and humility and faith.
The biblical passages Reformed shared are good and relevant, but only in the context and in agreement with other passages revealed in Scripture. The Bible nor Jesus contradict himself. They're not two ways to save Jews and Gentile, nor "secret rapture", or gap in Dan. 9:24-27, after the 69th week in the prophecy of the 70-weeks. When one doesn't accept the revealed truth, then one is subject to confusion, uncertainty, and vulnerable to believe a lie.
This is why there are "way too much division in the Church". There are no "nonessentials" revealed in the Bible. "Trust and obey, there's no other way to be happy in Jesus..." CM
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
