Posted on 10/15/2011 9:30:31 AM PDT by marbren
There is a difference between God and man, you know. God wrote His Bible the way He wrote it and used parables (which always symbolized something literal) on occasion.
Can you give me the Scriptural authorization by God that man is to take His Bible as anything but literal? Where do we go to find out that God tells us that we are to take it upon ourselves to change the meaning of Scripture?
I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. (Romans 11:1-2)
Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, who disturbs the sea, and its waves roar (The Lord of hosts is His name):
“If those ordinances depart from before Me, says the Lord, then the seed of Israel shall also cease from being a nation before Me forever.”
Thus says the Lord: “If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, says the Lord.” (Jeremiah 31:35-37)
These are just a few of the Scriptures that these people have knowingly and deliberately denied and discarded to make the claim that God is done with Israel. What else did God say?
for you have magnified your word above all your name. (Psalm 138:2)
And what else?
So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God. (Romans 14:12)
So, these people have denied the one thing that God magnifies above His name, and they will stand before God and answer to Him for what they have done.
I don't think it's Bible-believing Christians who have something to be concerned about.
You haven't been around the last seven or eight years to see that this individual is indeed very much like you -- always denying the Bible and ongoing realities while never able to provide Biblical proof for what he believes.
Examine my posting record as far back as you wish, and FR will retrieve.
If you are looking for an AD 65 person who wrote down the major tenents of dispensationalism in a systematic form, you will not find him. I can give you that point without issue ... but your conclusion erronously derived from that point is undemonstrable. I assume you are well aware that doctrine develops over time ... it took a few hundred years to formulate the doctrine of the trinity, and many other doctrines. Your own history of Catholic doctrine attests to this fact as well.
So your basic premise, that dispensationalism is false because no one wrote it down formally until the 19th century contains a logical fallacy. By that logic the doctrine of the trinity is false because it was not formalized until the councils.
Nevertheless, though I sincerely hope I am not wasting my time ... here is a summary article that you can easily read in one sitting.
http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-AShortHistoryOfDispen.pdf
You will find other interesting articles (from my perspective) on that general site; including many articles that would be critical of your position. At least you would understand WHY we dispensationalists reject your view of theology.
i look forward researching your answer, 19 centuries is a long time.
Again, though that article is only a summary, you can look at the references that the summary uses to your hearts content.
lol ... Good luck with your research.
ac·cu·sa·tion - noun
1. a charge of wrongdoing; imputation of guilt or blame.
2. the specific offense charged: The accusation is murder.
3. the act of accusing or state of being accused.
The Kingdom of God is the spiritual kingdom...And yes it was taken from Israel...The eyes of the Jews had been blinded as to not see the spiritual kingdom...
The physical Kingdom however is an entirely different story...It was promised to the Jews and the promise will never be revoked...The land belongs to the real Israel, not your Catholic church...
If the promised land belonged to your religion, you can bet your pope's red shoes that he'd have his throne in Jerusalem instead if Italy...
If you believed the scriptures instead of trying to 'interpret' them into saying things they don't say, you wouldn't be so lost when it comes to the Kingdoms...
The Jews were promised the land...They now have (some of) the land and they will keep it...And not an ounce of your false, private interpretation will change any of it...
If you have no use for what another Freeper has to say, IGNORE his/her posts.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
thank you for your thoughtful repsonse and the link.
uh, i don’t recall the papists claiming any land.
there are only two kingdoms the Scriptures are concerned about. the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.
the Jews in Jesus’s day made the mistake of looking for a physical kingdom.......nothing new under the sun. those looking for a physical kingdom and missing the spiritual kingdom where Jesus reigns as King today!
I read a few translations and some commentary. No revelation light bulb type moment for me.
Isaiah 54:1 (KJV) Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.
I read a few translations and some commentary. No revelation light bulb type moment for me.
No doubt. The commentaries do not look at it literally. A woman in prophecy-speak is always a religion or nation/group. So this passage is speaking to a particular people... thereafter, it is only a process of elimination:
Isa 54:1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.
She is desolate - she has no children at this time... She has not produced. She is not the married wife, as she is compared to the married wife. The married wife is the House of Judah, whom she cannot be.
Isa 54:2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;
Isa 54:3 For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.
She cannot be the gentiles, as her seed will inherit the gentiles, and will participate in the restoration of the desolate cities.
Isa 54:4 Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.
She was shamed in her youth by her own doing, and widowed (cut off). Here comes the kicker:
Isa 54:5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.
Isa 54:6 For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.
She was a wife, but was refused early on. There is only ONE people who this could be, as YHWH has only divorced one wife, and she was never shown mercy - The House of Israel. His other wife, the House of Judah, was not ever divorced, and was shown mercy over and over.
Knowing that the House of Judah and the House of Israel are treated as two entities changes the entire view of the OT. and most especially the prophecy... and has a great impact upon the NT as well.
Why is it important? Because YHWH divorced her, and in her divorcement, she slept with other gods. By His own law, He cannot take her back once she has slept with another... Why is she told to sing for joy at the death of Christ? The marriage vow is only until death... And this prophetic declaration enjoins her again as the wife of her Maker, YHWH, Lord of Hosts.
I will leave off and let you figger it out from there, But to discount the ten tribes of the House of Israel is an huge oversight in Christianity.
(*note* all quotes e-Sword:KJV)
Where does man get the authorization from God to change the meaning of Scripture?
It couldn't have been that man just takes it upon himself to change what God has said into what man wishes had been said, right? There must be something written somewhere by God that gives man the authority and the omniscience and omnipresence possessed by God to change what He wrote into something that men can find more acceptable, right?
Where did God give man that authority?
the Jews in Jesus’s day made the mistake of looking for a physical kingdom.......nothing new under the sun. those looking for a physical kingdom and missing the spiritual kingdom where Jesus reigns as King today!
It's difficult to carry on a bible conversation with someone who know so little of what's in the book...
There are 8 times as many prophecies in the OT about the 2nd coming of Jesus and the subsequent physical Kingdom as there are the 1st coming of Jesus Christ...
Look at the parables in the Gospels...Are they spiritual??? Of course not...They are physical...
You'd be smart to dump that catechism and pick up a bible and see what God has to say about the issue...
the Jews in Jesus’s day made the mistake of looking for a physical kingdom.......
That's crazy...God worked thru the entire OT telling the Jews about a physical Kingdom that he promised them...And God came thru with the promise...The Jews believed God...Why don't you???
Wow, neat light bulb moment roamer_1 Thank You! Ever since I left replacement theology behind me I knew the 10 lost tribes of Israel would play a role especially because of the 12,000 from each tribe in Revelation. You may have a clue here. I just took by Faith that God could figure out the details.
IMHO man does not have the authority but The Holy Spirit inside you does have the authority.
John 16:12-15 (NIV) 12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”
Another neat analogy is that Bethlehem is in your heart where Our Lord Jesus Christ is born.
Exactly. Rachel is probably the archetype of the barren woman. She weeps for her children. Her children, Joseph and Benjamin, were carried away in the diaspora - only half of Benjamin remained. And in Joseph, and more importantly, in his sons Ephraim and Manasseh, lies almost the entirety of the inheritance... Irrevocably ordained of YHWH. And Ephraim is 'the fruitful bough, watered by the brook' He is to overflow the wall, to be prodigious in fruit. The brothers are to become 'a great nation, and a league of nations'... We are nearly at the end of it all - When did these things happen? Where are they?
I'm tellin ya, this is YHWH's hole card... the thing that no one is looking at... due in large part to replacement theology.
As long as Jesus Christ took Scripture literally, and quoted Scripture literally, as He did many, many times, there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for fallen man to allegorize or spiritualize or in any other way change the meaning of the Bible as God wrote it.
Aside from the obvious allegories that God Himself put in His book, fallen man has no authority to read the Bible allegorically. God never gave us permission to do that.
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.