Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Christís Second Coming (1)
Bible Search ^ | October 26, 1996 | Doug Focht, Jr.

Posted on 04/07/2005 8:31:12 AM PDT by TheTruthess

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last

1 posted on 04/07/2005 8:31:13 AM PDT by TheTruthess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TheTruthess

I think that is a nice story but I don't believe a word of it. No offense.


2 posted on 04/07/2005 8:41:54 AM PDT by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheTruthess

"You will notice that except for the passage cited in Rev. 20, I have not listed any of the passages that premillenialists use to support their theory."

Daniel chapter 7 outlines premillenialism. vs 11 is the destruction of the "little horn" followed by the coming of the Son of Man, and THEN he receives the kingdom ... and peoples, nations, and tongues shall serve him. Since Daniel deals specifically with Earthly kingdoms, there is no reason to dismiss the notion that the Son of Man will receive anything but an Earthly kingdom.


3 posted on 04/07/2005 8:50:43 AM PDT by dartuser (Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheTruthess

"Putting these two “plain-spoken” accounts together, we have a “concrete” interpretation from Jesus Himself of the “abomination of desolation” mentioned by the prophet Daniel"

Second point. In my experience I have found that many people project a New Testament understanding back into the Old Testament to "interpret" an OT passage. A passage of scripture can never mean what it was never intended to mean to the original recipient. Luke and Matt were not in existence when Daniel penned the prophecy so Matt and Luke has no bearing on the interpretation of Daniel ...

Now Jew in Daniels day had any knowledge of the NT, so the interpretation must only include revelation given up to that point in time. To project a NT understanding into an OT passage breaks any semblence of a consistent logical interpretative framework.


4 posted on 04/07/2005 8:55:05 AM PDT by dartuser (Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dartuser; jkl1122; asformeandformyhouse
Second point. In my experience I have found that many people project a New Testament understanding back into the Old Testament to "interpret" an OT passage. A passage of scripture can never mean what it was never intended to mean to the original recipient. Luke and Matt were not in existence when Daniel penned the prophecy so Matt and Luke has no bearing on the interpretation of Daniel ...

While I understand Luke and Matthew were not in existence when "Daniel penned the prophecy" - God was and is.  The Bible is of God.

5 posted on 04/07/2005 9:03:00 AM PDT by TheTruthess (love Him - live in Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TheTruthess

That's not a very nice story and I don't believe a word of it.

But no matter! You will be zapped of to 'be with Christ' [whatever that means - wil it be a stadium event, or something more like an acid high?] and I will be ruled over by Satan before getting consumed in Hellish fires. Better not save for that retirement.


6 posted on 04/07/2005 9:04:01 AM PDT by johnmilken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheTruthess

So why would a Jew in 600 BC interpret Daniel outside of the OT context ? Answer: He wouldnt ... nor could he.

How would a Jew in 600 BC interpret the prophecy in Dan 7? Just how it reads. He was quite familiar with Earthly kingdoms, and that is the context of Daniel. How long is the Earthly kingdom? ... it says FOREVER, not 1000 years.

The 1000 years in Rev 20 is not the kingdom, its the kickoff party, the kingdom is forever.


7 posted on 04/07/2005 9:07:52 AM PDT by dartuser (Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
I think that is a nice story but I don't believe a word of it. No offense.

Neither do I.

8 posted on 04/07/2005 9:12:48 AM PDT by AlaskaErik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TheTruthess; dartuser; asformeandformyhouse

A real problem with Premillenialism comes when you consider Christ's role as both priest and king. In Zechariah 6:12-13, a prophecy about Christ says "he shall sit and rule upon his throne; and be shall be a priest upon his throne". Hebrews 8:4 says that Christ could not act as priest while on the earth, because He did not descend from the priestly tribe of Levi(Hebrews 7:14). If Christ is unable to serve as priest on earth, yet He will serve as priest and king jointly, then His reign as king can't be an earthly reign.


9 posted on 04/07/2005 9:43:50 AM PDT by jkl1122
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TheTruthess

Come quickly, Lord Jesus.


10 posted on 04/07/2005 9:44:58 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy (Rest in Peace, Theresa Marie SCHINDLER - IMPEACH JUDGE GREER!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheTruthess
These eschatology debates are interesting, but eventually it's obvious that no amount of study, prophecy, or preparation on our part will stop God from carrying out His Plan, whatever it is.

The only thing anyone should really "worry" about is being right with God.
11 posted on 04/07/2005 10:03:15 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheTruthess
The Bible is of God.

While you are correct on this, it is a matter of the old covenant vs. the new covenant. The old covenant contained faults...for example, the old covenant could not take away sins, the new covenant does. Hebrews 8:7 says, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second."

As Paul wrote, by Jesus being crucified, He was "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" (Colossians 2:14). In my understanding, the Old Testament is a history of God's old covenant with the children of Israel, the New Testament is what we should live by and it tells us of things to come. But like any good book, you always need to read the first half of the book to understand the rest of the book, and regardless of the names of the authors of the chapters, it was divinely inspired by God and the authors were merely "ghost writers", so therefore the whole Bible is of God, as you say.

12 posted on 04/07/2005 10:05:09 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

"To project a NT understanding into an OT passage breaks any semblence of a consistent logical interpretative framework."

Actually, the Early Church Fathers did it all the time. They wrote entire books "proving" that the NT was hidden in the OT. Justin the Martyr wrote "Dialogue to Trypho", Irenaeus wrote "Proof of Apostolic Preaching", etc... You are basing your ideas of interpretation on modernism. All the Scriptures point to Christ, and that is the way the Church interprets esp. OT Scripture.

Ex. Isaiah 7 and the virgin birth. No recipient Jew of this thought that this would refer to the incarnation of Christ. Ask any Jew about this passage and they will tell you the same. Only we, as Christians, look at this verse as a prophesy of the virgin birth.

Regards


13 posted on 04/07/2005 10:11:37 AM PDT by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven
The only thing anyone should really "worry" about is being right with God.

AMEN!

14 posted on 04/07/2005 12:34:36 PM PDT by TheTruthess (love Him - live in Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jkl1122

I was merely point out that the author is under the misconception that the basis for premillenialism is found in Rev 20, its not, its basis is in Daniel 7.

In 2 Sam 7 the Davidic covenant is established. That references a future AND eternal kingdom. Since there can only be one eternal kingdom, the kingdom in Daniel is the awaited Davidic kingdom. The entire book of Daniel reference Earthly kingdoms, and the eternal kingdom is composed of nations, peoples, and tongues.

You cant get away from the teaching of the entire book of Daniel and an earthly kingdom by piecing together a few passages across testaments about kings and priests.

I will give you some credit though ... I have never heard this argument against premillenialism, I will have to do a little in depth work here. I appreciate the chance you have given to grow in the knowledge of scripture and wish you the same ... :-)


15 posted on 04/07/2005 1:00:05 PM PDT by dartuser (Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

"You cant get away from the teaching of the entire book of Daniel and an earthly kingdom by piecing together a few passages across testaments about kings and priests."

The passage I pointed to was a prophecy about Christ. An earthly kingdom for Christ would violate that prophecy. Are you willing to say that prophecy was not valid?


16 posted on 04/07/2005 1:02:50 PM PDT by jkl1122
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jkl1122
Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek who was an earthly priest.

This is what all of Hebrews 7 is about. It is how he fulfills the role of priest here on earth.

JM
17 posted on 04/07/2005 1:19:50 PM PDT by JohnnyM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jkl1122

Im saying I have some work to do on the matter to understand your argument. But you have a major problem in that you have to throw out the Davidic covenant to reconcile your position.


18 posted on 04/07/2005 1:22:27 PM PDT by dartuser (Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyM

Does Christ's Kingdom exist today?


19 posted on 04/07/2005 1:32:07 PM PDT by jkl1122
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jkl1122
yes, but not earthly. That will come later when He returns.

JM
20 posted on 04/07/2005 1:33:51 PM PDT by JohnnyM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson