The Kingdom of God (SeanD and ApologiaPhoenix) Split Topic

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Sheesh, PF, I"m beginning to give up on this argument because it's pointless, not because I'm avoiding your points. I'm repeating myself, and you're obviously just on the attack now, using ad hoc and reductio ad absurdum, not bothering to understand any of my points.

Mat 11:14-15:

Mat 17:10-11:

I'm only following the path you laid out. You're the one who's been going out making straw men about my view point and comparing me to liberals and such. Then when I give the same, you whine.

Notice in the first passage Jesus cautioned them, lest they misunderstood what he meant. If we go by your argument that Jesus was actually declaring John as the Elijah, instead of a type of Elijah (Luke 1:7), then we must accept the fact that either John the Baptist contradicted Jesus, or the apostle John himself contradicted the other gospel writers.

Oh. Then the text wasn't literal? Elijah wasn't literally to come but a type of Elijah?

[seanD]

Oh. Then the text wasn't literal? Elijah wasn't literally to come but a type of Elijah?

Literal or allegory -- either or -- is not my position, PF, and I’ve made this perfectly clear throughout my argument. You are building a strawman if I’ve ever seen one. Do you know what a strawman argument is? Apparently you don’t because you’ve used it at least twice incorrectly. You are creating a false argument, which I am not arguing, in order to discredit my actual argument. Thus you are lying in order to attack my position.

As far as events in scripture overall, if it’s reasonable to interpret it literally and there is no allegorical explanation given, I do so. If I interpret something wrong, then I have enough faith in God that he will correct me, or the true meaning will be revealed at some point in the future without any real consequences to my faith. If, while following this criteria -- interpreting something literal -- there are allegories peppered within the verses, and there is no explanation, then I use common sense.

I know the difference between what is literal and what is allegorical or metaphorical. You apparently do not. Abraham’s descendants numbering the stars of the heavens, doesn’t mean that they will literally be infinite -- common sense. But that doesn’t mean the prophecy was not literal in the sense that God would bless Abraham with a whole lot of descendants. The criteria you use for Rev is that you would argue that the entire prophecy never happened, but was metaphorical or spiritual, just because symbolism was used within it.

Then there is what is called theological language. God fighting for David may not have meant that God literally fought in a physical body, but we know that his spirit enabled David to do so effectively, so essentially this was true. But just because the writer used this type of language doesn’t mean that a real person named David didn’t exist who was God's servant, and a very successful warrior king. I know that God will probably not literally put "hooks" into Gog and Magog and drag them down to Jerusalem, but he will spiritually influence or persuade them to come down. But that doesn’t mean we have to interpret the whole event as allegory. There is no reason to believe that a literal invasion won’t take place, with demons named Gog and Magog, directing human armies called Meshech and Tubal from the far North (or their descendants -- Turkey and Russia) that invade Jerusalem.

See the difference? Common sense.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Literal or allegory -- either or -- is not my position, PF, and I’ve made this perfectly clear throughout my argument. You are building a strawman if I’ve ever seen one.

Your claim earlier in post 90

There may have been images that the prophet didn't understand and described them the best he could, but scriptural prophecies spoken in future tense were always fulfilled the way they happened, including the messianic prophecies.

It was a prophecy that before Messiah Elijah would come. Is that literal or not?

Do you know what a strawman argument is? Apparently you don’t because you’ve used it at least twice incorrectly. You are creating a false argument, which I am not arguing, in order to discredit my actual argument. Thus you are lying in order to attack my position.

No. You have insisted on literal fulfillment and been called on it.

As far as events in scripture overall, if it’s reasonable to interpret it literally and there is no allegorical explanation given, I do so. If I interpret something wrong, then I have enough faith in God that he will correct me, or the true meaning will be revealed at some point in the future without any real consequences to my faith. If, while following this criteria -- interpreting something literal -- there are allegories peppered within the verses, and there is no explanation, then I use common sense.

Which is simply an ad hominem to all who disagree with you. I ask again, when did God fight David's enemies for him?

I know the difference between what is literal and what is allegorical or metaphorical. You apparently do not.

Which simply means that Preterism is wrong because the dispensational hermeneutic is the true one. If it is, then yes, a different hermeneutic is wrong. You've merely asserted it however.

Abraham’s descendants numbering the stars of the heavens, doesn’t mean that they will literally be infinite -- common sense.

Oh. So now hyperbole is okay.....

But that doesn’t mean the prophecy was not literal in the sense that God would bless Abraham with a whole lot of descendants.

Ah. So a prophecy can be fulfilled without literal fulfillment.

Glad to see you've dropped the idea that a prophecy must be literally fulfilled.

The criteria you use for Rev is that you would argue that the entire prophecy never happened, but was metaphorical or spiritual, just because symbolism was used within it.

No. That's a straw man. I would argue that it did happen. It just didn't literally happen.

Then there is what is called theological language. God fighting for David may not have meant that God literally fought in a physical body, but we know that his spirit enabled David to do so effectively, so essentially this was true.

Go read 2 Samuel 22 and tell me when that happened.

But just because the writer used this type of language doesn’t mean that a real person named David didn’t exist who was God's servant, and a very successful warrior king.

And you accuse me of using straw men!

I know that God will probably not literally put "hooks" into Gog and Magog and drag them down to Jerusalem, but he will spiritually influence or persuade them to come down.

Oh. Then these aren't literally fulfilled....

So it's okay if you decide something isn't literal....

If we decide it, we're allegorizing liberals.

But that doesn’t mean we have to interpret the whole event as allegory. There is no reason to believe that a literal invasion won’t take place, with demons named Gog and Magog, directing human armies called Meshech and Tubal from the far North (or their descendants -- Turkey and Russia) that invade Jerusalem.

Or that it did take place.

See the difference? Common sense.

Yes. I see it. It's hypocritical question-begging. You can deny literal fulfillment when it suits you and that's fine. If we deny a literal fulfillment, we're allegorizing liberals who are denying Scripture.

[seanD]

It was a prophecy that before Messiah Elijah would come. Is that literal or not?

First of all, the scripture clearly says that Elijah will appear before "the dreadful day of Lord." And yes, I would have interpreted it literally then as I do now, as did the Jews apparently. Then Jesus came and explained that, yes, it is literal, he will appear, but since they were not aware of Jesus' dual messianic role, he had to explain to them that John was a type of Elijah or symbolic of Elijah, but that the actual Elijah would appear before Jesus fulfilled his second role. Jesus told those who didn't understand not to dwell on it.

So, though I would have been wrong in my initial interpretation, as were the Jews, I wasn't technically wrong. Thus I would have just needed God to explain it to me. Yet do you think the faith of his followers were shattered because of this misunderstanding?

No. You have insisted on literal fulfillment and been called on it.

You're a liar, simple as that. I've argued literal and allegory...

I don't deny that there are spiritual allegory, poetry, metaphor, and symbolism in scripture, but there is such as thing as taking it to the extreme, which is what liberals do.

Which is simply an ad hominem to all who disagree with you. I ask again, when did God fight David's enemies for him?

Are we not aided by the Holy Spirit? Did David win all his battles alone, without God?

You're an ego maniac PF, using anything and everything in your arsenal, and I knew this when I saw how acted in the "call out Ty" thread. I should have known not to get involved in a discussion with a person like you.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

First of all, the scripture clearly says that Elijah will appear before "the dreadful day of Lord." And yes, I would have interpreted it literally then as I do now, as did the Jews apparently. Then Jesus came and explained that, yes, it is literal, he will appear, but since they were not aware of Jesus' dual messianic role, he had to explain to them that John was a type of Elijah or symbolic of Elijah, but that the actual Elijah would appear before Jesus fulfilled his second role. Jesus told those who didn't understand not to dwell on it.

Actually, he said Elijah did come and they understood that he was talking about John the Baptist.

So, though I would have been wrong in my initial interpretation, as were the Jews, I wasn't technically wrong. Thus I would have just needed God to explain it to me. Yet do you think the faith of his followers were shattered because of this misunderstanding?

No. They did understand Elijah was to come but not how. Note that you would have been wrong, just as the Jews were wrong who were expecting a Messiah who would come and defeat Rome. Elijah did not literally come, therefore, not all Messianic prophecies are "literally" fulfilled.

You're a liar, simple as that. I've argued literal and allegory...

No. I took your statement made in a post such as post 90. Do you often make character accusations like this?

Are we not aided by the Holy Spirit? Did David win all his battles alone, without God?

Tell me when it happened? When did God ride down on a chariot and shoot arrows at David's opponents?

You're an ego maniac PF, using anything and everything in your arsenal, and I knew this when I saw how acted in the "call out Ty" thread. I should have known not to get involved in a discussion with a person like you.

Oh yes. Egomaniac who is interested in the truth. You're the one who speaks of a Ph.D. in Greek and says "I don't care what he says. He's wrong." You're the one who has no interest in reading what I've recommended you read and insist that everyone else is ignorant or doesn't use common sense.

If you want to speak of Ty, Ty spoke of a Christian brother as a heretic. I take that seriously. I'm sorry you don't take slander against the brethren seriously. Instead, it seems you engage in it.

[seanD]

No. I took your statement made in a post such as post 90. Do you often make character accusations like this?

I argue both literal and allegory, where common sense is applied, always have, and I can get even older posts from other threads...

Post #82:

The horses are obviously symbolic, but the explanation of what the horses represent are given. The multi-headed beast is symbolic, but the explanation is given.

• Edited by a Moderator •

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I argue both literal and allegory, where common sense is applied, always have, and I can get even older posts from other threads...

Post #82:

• Edited by a Moderator •

I made the statement about what you said about Messianic prophecies. You change the rules just when it fits you. I have it based on the text itself that this is the style of prophecy. Your continual use of attacking my character instead of the substance of my arguments is duly noted.

[Obsidian]

I really wish a preterist on here would just give a section-by-section interpretation of exactly what Revelation means. I'm sure that would satisfy a lot of Sean's concerns. I've actually got a cd about it by James Jordan that someone sent me off the internet, but I had trouble playing it after about the third track. Now I was about to try playing it on something else, just so I could answer Sean, but I can't seem to find the cd anymore.

Anyway, Sean and Phoenix have obviously made their points. Sean really really likes literal interpretations whenever possible, and Phoenix has pointed to numerous prophecies that were clearly not literal. But all this is generality. Can we just get down to what exactly Revelation means? What do the various symbols represent, if they're actually symbols? (And I ask specifically about Revelation, because Dee Dee already did a pretty good job of explaining Matthew 24 on her website.)

It seems like we oughta be able to have a chapter-by-chapter interpretation thread in a place like this.

[seanD]

I know that there are a lot of arguments, and probably various sides to the issue argued by preterists, like there are different views of futurists, but is't Ken Gentry one of the top dog preterist theologians today? I saw his vids, I have to say, I wasn't impressed.

Obviously there is no book like Rev anywhere in the bible. And yes, there are many symbolisms. The key I use in interpreting them, unless the explanation is given (i.e. the horsemen, the beast, the harlot, etc.), is to interpret it in its simplest literal form and based on the clues given. The locusts are demons because they come from the abyss -- the abyss, the fact they can recognize a specific mark from God, the fact they can pick and choose their victims, and their appearance are all the clues -- yet they looked like locusts to John either because of the way they swarmed and devoured, or they literally had anatomies like locusts (remember the strange supernatural creatures in Ezekiel’s vision?).

Here's my big issue. Why, if John was envisioning things in his era, did he cloak everything in confusing mystical symbolism in the first place? Why didn’t he just explain it as it is, especially since a lot of the symbolism he didn’t offer an explanation? Sure, Dan had his beasts, but for the most part, not only did Dan's angels explain everything to him, but Dan was not anywhere near as as vague as John was with his symbolism. This tells me that John was looking into the future. It also tells me that he was looking at the supernatural world and how it correlated with our world, and either seeing technology he didn’t understand and could only explain with images he was familiar with, but also seeing the things that exist in the literal supernatural world that, to our natural world, would seem absurd. Apparently in the tribulation, demons are going to be very active, much more than they have been, including some rather ruthless ones released for the first time on mankind, which makes the tribulation horrifyingly unique than any other time in history.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Here's my big issue. Why, if John was envisioning things in his era, did he cloak everything in confusing mystical symbolism in the first place? Why didn’t he just explain it as it is, especially since a lot of the symbolism he didn’t offer an explanation?

First, this isn't the style of apocalypse. There were other apocalypses written, although Revelation is the only book entirely of that genre.

Second, there is also the belief that it was written in this way in case the letter came into Roman hands as I do believe it speaks of the church's victory over the Roman Empire and by proxy, all other evil empires as well.

Sure, Dan had his beasts, but for the most part, not only did Dan's angels explain everything to him, but Dan was not anywhere near as as vague as John was with his symbolism.

Ah. Note that. Daniel had to have his vision explained. The vision was the prophecy. The explanation was explaining it.

This tells me that John was looking into the future.

So if John had spoken of the present, he would have used literal language? Then why did Jesus not use literal language when he spoke in John?

It also tells me that he was looking at the supernatural world and how it correlated with our world, and either seeing technology he didn’t understand and could only explain with images he was familiar with, but also seeing the things that exist in the literal supernatural world that, to our natural world, would seem absurd.

And yet, when LittleJoe brought this point up, you asked to not be lumped in with Hal Lindsey. Now you can say Hal is wrong about what he says, but you're using much the same technique that he does. I also wonder that if you take these passages of wars literally, then when you get to the Ezekiel passage, do you believe wooden weapons will literally be used?

Apparently in the tribulation, demons are going to be very active, much more than they have been, including some rather ruthless ones released for the first time on mankind, which makes the tribulation horrifyingly unique than any other time in history.

But note again that this is assuming the tribulation is future. I'd say its past. The great tribulation came and went. (Unfortunately, all I got was a lousy T-shirt.)

The purpose of Revelation is not to tell the future. It is to give comfort in the present. It is a book that tells much about who Christ is in relation to the Father. Christians at the time would have seen the fall of the Roman Empire from within and understood to be faithful to Christ.

[seanD]

So if John had spoken of the present, he would have used literal language? Then why did Jesus not use literal language when he spoke in John?

Jesus didn't have any visions, John did.

And yet, when LittleJoe brought this point up, you asked to not be lumped in with Hal Lindsey. Now you can say Hal is wrong about what he says, but you're using much the same technique that he does. I also wonder that if you take these passages of wars literally, then when you get to the Ezekiel passage, do you believe wooden weapons will literally be used?

There are two ways I view it. It is allegory (ancient Jews would not have known about our technology), but the weapons are literally melted down and recycled for other things -- the fact that it takes seven years to do this is a strong indication, as wooden weapons would not take this long to burn. Or, since I believe the Gog and Magog scene takes place after the mil -- as plainly indicated in Rev 20:7-9 -- it's possible that they will in fact be archaic weapons, if the present weapons we have now are banned by the ruling King of kings during the mil. So yes, it's possible that even that verse is literal.

[Littlejoe]

You might want to read posts carefully before using it to support a view you have. Jaltus tried to argue from a Greek grammatical standpoint at first, which would have been a strong argument, but then corrected himself (right after Waterrock corrected him), because the Greek word for "thousand" in Rev changed to modify the word "years," as zero_out and WebDunce also pointed out on page 2, which doesn't mean that the word "thousand" was anymore or less "thousand" in other places of Rev or anywhere else...

You're right. I misread that as him saying all of Rev. was plural, not just ch. 20.
That doesn't change the fact that every other instance of the exact phrase "1000 years " in the Bible is not literal but figurative.

So then he proceeded to make up for it by declaring that the Strong's was incorrect most of the time, without even backing such a outrageous statement at all,

The fact is that I know 3 people who either know Greek well (scholars, etc.), or are studying Greek currently, NONE of them use Strong's. The all use BGAD as their source (among other aids).
Strong's was the best there was in it's day, but it's day has past.

and that the book of Rev is metaphorical, therefore we should accept "thousand" as metaphorical. Yet this does nothing to change the fact that chilias is 1000, and always has been 1000. To argue that it is metaphorical is fine, but note that that is an assumption not based on anything but an assumption.

Again, it is a figure of speech.

BTW, the quote of Jaltus on the top of page two, he says:

...At least, that is the best way to look at it IMO.

So he does acknowledge it is his opinion.

Also, in a amusing twist of irony...you should note that Jaltus is a Premillinialist, so his views are going to be much, much closer to yours than mine.

LJ

[Obsidian]

I guess no one cares much about my suggestion for specifics.

[Littlejoe]

I guess no one cares much about my suggestion for specifics.

That's a pretty big undertaking...don't ya know...especially with specifics.
For instance, look at Rev 1

Rev 1:1-3 States it is the Rev. of Jesus, and that these things to follow will happen soon, because "...the time is near..."
4-6) Christ is Lord of all, is coming back...
7-8) (a) He Is coming back in judgement (with clouds is always "in judgement" in the OT)
(b) All will see Him, even those that pierced Him ( i.e. the generation that crucified Him)
(c) All the tribes of the land( Israel) (not earth) will mourn. Zech 12:10 refers to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Futhermore, Israel is divided into tribes, but the earth is divided into nations.

This would be a lot of work.

And you do understand, there are various beliefs in Preterism...as there are in most of the others.

LJ

[Obsidian]

You could pretty easily skip all the intro stuff and start in Chapter 5 or 6. And you could skip maybe 21 and 22 also. That only leaves about fifteen.