End Time views

[Literalist-Luke]

(Elf;43256)
Question, Are the Jews going to rebuild the temple here on earth and continue with animal sacrifices? If yes, Is it not true only the Jews from the tribe of Levi, are appointed the priest hood? If this is the case it brings some confusion, since the wars against the Jews up until the time of Hitler somewhere along the line all records have been destroyed. They do not know who is who and from what tribe any longer, it could at the most be guesswork. And everyone knows what the rule is about the priests, one from the tribe of Benjamin could not be a priest ect...This presents a serious problem, does anyone have any input on this?
Yessiree, we can certainly find an answer to that!

Do you know anybody with the last name of Levi, Levin, or Levine? Or anything similar? They are members of the tribe of Levi. When the diaspora happened in 70 AD the Levites began calling themselves by the name "Levi". It has metamorphed into various forms over the centuries, but that is how they will identify Levites.By the same token, do you know of anybody by the name "Cohan" or "Cohen" or anything similar? Those are people who are of Aaronic ancestry and are therefore eligible for the high priesthood.The one thing that is very interesting about all this, since you bring it up, is that there is indeed no way to objectively determine if anybody is a descendant of David.

So if somebody were to come along and claim to be the "Son of David", they would have no way or proving it. That alone should be a pretty strong suggestion to the Jews that Jesus was the guy they should be looking for. They'll figure it out someday.

 

[Literalist-Luke]

(Elf;43264)
I was a Dispensational pre-mill for 20 years, but, there are a few things I have a problem with: 1) Why do dispensationalists say we are, on earth … 2) when we die, we go to heaven…. 3) at the rapture, we come back to earth…. 4) at the rapture we go back to heaven…. 5) at the 2nd coming we come back to earth 7 years later to be there for 1000 years…. 6) after the thousand years, we go to a new heaven and earth?... If Jesus is going to rapture the church out of the world, why does Jesus pray for the exact opposite thing to happen (that the church would NOT be taken out of the world) in John 17:15,20? If dispensationalism has been of the "historic" Christian faith, why was it unheard of prior to the 1830's?These are just a few things that helped change my mind.
The position that you are describing here is Pre-Tribulational Pre-Millennialism. This system is in error, as you have described quite well. However, you don't have to chuck Pre-Millennialism out the window because of that. Pre-Millennialism is indeed the most Biblically defensible view, but the Post-Tribulational view of the Rapture solves the problems that you were struggling with. You should take another look at it.

 

[Christina]

The ten lost tribes went across the causas Mt into Scotland Ireland Britain and eventually became the christian nation of today they are referred to in scripture by the names of the largest tribes that is Ephraim and Mannash (Britain and America) the Jews that were in the south were Judah some benjamites and a few Levites it is they who are called the Jews today scripture calls them Judah you can read in Eze. 37 how these two branches sticks will be rejoined at Christs return this is also the story told in Eze 17 I will post link in a minute and there is also a book.However I know that Anti christ stands in the holy of holies at Mid tribulation when commits the abomination so it seems there has to be something there

 

[arniem]

(Elf;43273)
This question? "If dispensationalism has been of the "historic" Christian faith, why was it unheard of prior to the 1830's?" this is a question to Dispensationalists, who say it is a "historic" Christian faith. If in fact is was a "historic Christian faith" it would have been at least heard of, and written of before the 1800s. So far no one has come up with any answers.
Gosh sakes folks , historic Christian faith was the Roman Catholic Church. Are we to now discard protestant teaching?The rapture questions , end time questions , the Book of Revelation questions , have for the most part received the least attention in the old and historic Church. It is our generation who have started these discussions in earnest.The main reason we have interest now is because of the formation of the Nation of Israel in 1948. The prophecy clock began ticking again.Remember that "old" and "Historic Church" teaching had mainly abandoned any concept of Israel , and if anything they said the Church was now Israel. Many mistakes have been made and we continue to make some ourselves. Can you imagine standing on a street corner in Paris France in 1943 , reading out of the Bible , and saying one day all of Europe will be united , The Jews will return to Israel and again posses the promised land.Who would believe the message? All of Europe was at war , the Jews were being lead to the slaughter , no such country of Isreal existed in anyones memory. You would sound like a nut , but your literal Bible interpretation would have been correct.My point is you cannot use the excuse that Rapture is a recent invention. Using that logic , so is Israel , so is United Europe. By the way I have never taken a firm stand on the rapture timing question , but I certainly will not change the clear and literal teachings to my liking. To do so would be an error.Greetings to allArnie M.

 

[Elf]

(Literalist-Luke;43297)
The problem with this view is that it opens the entire Bible up to allegorical intepretation and we are reduced to a random guessing game as to what anything in the entire Bible really means. You are absolutley correct that there are thouands of symbols, parables, etc. throughout the Bible and they are not to be taken "literally", such as the dragon standing on the shore of the sea at the transition between Revelation 12-13. The key, however, to all those allegorical passages is that, somewhere in the Bible, often in the same passage but not always, there will be an explanation provided. And that explanation is indeed to be taken absolutely literally. If the Bible does not provide an explanation for what something means, then how are we to objectively determine what it means? We're reduced to a meaningless random guessing game. And if the allegorical approach is valid for Revelation, then why not for the entire Bible? You say "well, the rest of the Bible isn't as heavily 'symbolic' as Revelation." Really? Have you read Ezekiel, Matthew 24, Zechariah 12-14 or Jude lately? Why should those not be interpreted allegorically if it's OK with Revelation?
Obviously Revelation is not the only book in the bible which is symbolic.The only safe way of interpreting scripture is with scripture, interpreting the implied by the explicit.

 

[Elf]

(Literalist-Luke;43297)
The problem with this view is that it opens the entire Bible up to allegorical intepretation and we are reduced to a random guessing game as to what anything in the entire Bible really means. You are absolutley correct that there are thouands of symbols, parables, etc. throughout the Bible and they are not to be taken "literally", such as the dragon standing on the shore of the sea at the transition between Revelation 12-13. The key, however, to all those allegorical passages is that, somewhere in the Bible, often in the same passage but not always, there will be an explanation provided. And that explanation is indeed to be taken absolutely literally. If the Bible does not provide an explanation for what something means, then how are we to objectively determine what it means? We're reduced to a meaningless random guessing game. And if the allegorical approach is valid for Revelation, then why not for the entire Bible? You say "well, the rest of the Bible isn't as heavily 'symbolic' as Revelation." Really? Have you read Ezekiel, Matthew 24, Zechariah 12-14 or Jude lately? Why should those not be interpreted allegorically if it's OK with Revelation?
(Literalist-Luke;43300)
Yessiree, we can certainly find an answer to that!

Do you know anybody with the last name of Levi, Levin, or Levine? Or anything similar? They are members of the tribe of Levi. When the diaspora happened in 70 AD the Levites began calling themselves by the name "Levi". It has metamorphed into various forms over the centuries, but that is how they will identify Levites.By the same token, do you know of anybody by the name "Cohan" or "Cohen" or anything similar? Those are people who are of Aaronic ancestry and are therefore eligible for the high priesthood.The one thing that is very interesting about all this, since you bring it up, is that there is indeed no way to objectively determine if anybody is a descendant of David.

So if somebody were to come along and claim to be the "Son of David", they would have no way or proving it. That alone should be a pretty strong suggestion to the Jews that Jesus was the guy they should be looking for. They'll figure it out someday.

It is not quite that simple, If it were that simple there would be no problems. Ask the Jews, they will explain it much better for you.

 

[Literalist-Luke]

(Elf;43296)
Two reasons, Because of my previous posts. and you said maby it is better I cant see it. And your name? "Literalist". But it is not an issue about salvation. I just find it very interesting and respect everyone's views.
Most people just call me "Luke". (Sometimes I also answer to a lot of other names that are not repeatable, but that's OK. )

 

[Christina]

(kriss;43303)
The ten lost tribes went across the causas Mt into Scotland Ireland Britain and eventually became the christian nation of today they are referred to in scripture by the names of the largest tribes that is Ephraim and Mannash (Britain and America) the Jews that were in the south were Judah some benjamites and a few Levites it is they who are called the Jews today scripture calls them Judah you can read in Eze. 37 how these two branches sticks will be rejoined at Christs return this is also the story told in Eze 17 I will post link in a minute and there is also a book.However I know that Anti christ stands in the holy of holies at Mid tribulation when commits he the abomination so it seems there has to be something there
heres links http://www.christianityboard.com/eze-17-tr...ghlight=Ezekielhttp://www.christianityboard.com/judaha-sc...ight-t6118.html

 

[Literalist-Luke]

(Elf;43299)
Oops, sorry I misunderstood your question, I thought you meant your view. How did I arrive at my view? Through bible study, comparing a lot with scripture. I also have some friends who are Pre-Mils, they insist I am wrong (I do not tell them they are wrong) and give me many verses to prove their theory. When I checked them with scripture, they fell short. The only two views that make sense to me are Amil and Post-Mil, but, I lean towards Amil. Guess I can say, 80% Amil and 20% Post-Mil. This is a study that will take many years I am sure, perhaps longer than I have on this earth, but I enjoy it. As far as the "Rapture" goes, (no offense to anyone) I don't see it as biblical at all.
I'm curious if you have ever considered Pre-Millennial Post-Tribulationism. Most of the Pre-Millennial problems I see you mentioning are a result of Pre-Tribulationism, not Pre-Millennialism.

 

[Christina]

(Elf;43305)
Obviously Revelation is not the only book in the bible which is symbolic.The only safe way of interpreting scripture is with scripture, interpreting the implied by the explicit.
God tells exactly what is to be symbolic and what is not so the idea all rev is symbolic is false it must also present no contradiction in the rest of scripture futher more there is nothing in the New testament that is not in old test. the language may be differnt or it may be a type or forerunner but Rev just as all books in the new testament has a second wittness in the old you just got know how to dig it out. And rightly divide the Word.

 

[Elf]

(arniem;43304)
Gosh sakes folks , historic Christian faith was the Roman Catholic Church. Are we to now discard protestant teaching?The rapture questions , end time questions , the Book of Revelation questions , have for the most part received the least attention in the old and historic Church. It is our generation who have started these discussions in earnest.The main reason we have interest now is because of the formation of the Nation of Israel in 1948. The prophecy clock began ticking again.Remember that "old" and "Historic Church" teaching had mainly abandoned any concept of Israel , and if anything they said the Church was now Israel. Many mistakes have been made and we continue to make some ourselves. Can you imagine standing on a street corner in Paris France in 1943 , reading out of the Bible , and saying one day all of Europe will be united , The Jews will return to Israel and again posses the promised land.Who would believe the message? All of Europe was at war , the Jews were being lead to the slaughter , no such country of Isreal existed in anyones memory. You would sound like a nut , but your literal Bible interpretation would have been correct.My point is you cannot use the excuse that Rapture is a recent invention. Using that logic , so is Israel , so is United Europe. By the way I have never taken a firm stand on the rapture timing question , but I certainly will not change the clear and literal teachings to my liking. To do so would be an error.Greetings to allArnie M.
Well I can see your point about the Jews getting there nation back. But the Rapture teaching as described by Dispensationalists is not taught in scripture, at least not where I can see. No offense intended, If you have some solid scripture proof, please, present it. I was a Pre-mill for twenty years, I believed because I was told this is the way it is. But when I studied into this I (personally) found it to be false. But, there is always that chance I may be wrong, as I said i respect others beliefs and look forward to learning more.

 

[Elf]

(arniem;43304)
Gosh sakes folks , historic Christian faith was the Roman Catholic Church. Are we to now discard protestant teaching?The rapture questions , end time questions , the Book of Revelation questions , have for the most part received the least attention in the old and historic Church. It is our generation who have started these discussions in earnest.The main reason we have interest now is because of the formation of the Nation of Israel in 1948. The prophecy clock began ticking again.Remember that "old" and "Historic Church" teaching had mainly abandoned any concept of Israel , and if anything they said the Church was now Israel. Many mistakes have been made and we continue to make some ourselves. Can you imagine standing on a street corner in Paris France in 1943 , reading out of the Bible , and saying one day all of Europe will be united , The Jews will return to Israel and again posses the promised land.Who would believe the message? All of Europe was at war , the Jews were being lead to the slaughter , no such country of Isreal existed in anyones memory. You would sound like a nut , but your literal Bible interpretation would have been correct.My point is you cannot use the excuse that Rapture is a recent invention. Using that logic , so is Israel , so is United Europe. By the way I have never taken a firm stand on the rapture timing question , but I certainly will not change the clear and literal teachings to my liking. To do so would be an error.Greetings to allArnie M.
(kriss;43315)
God tells exactly what is to be symbolic and what is not so the idea all rev is symbolic is false it must also present no contradiction in the rest of scripture futher more there is nothing in the New testament that is not in old test. the language may be differnt or it may be a type or forerunner but Rev just as all books in the new testament has a second wittness in the old you just got know how to dig it out. And rightly divide the Word.
I didn't say, at least I didn't mean that all Revelation is to be taken symbolically.

 

[Literalist-Luke]

(arniem;43304)
Gosh sakes folks , historic Christian faith was the Roman Catholic Church. Are we to now discard protestant teaching?The rapture questions , end time questions , the Book of Revelation questions , have for the most part received the least attention in the old and historic Church. It is our generation who have started these discussions in earnest.
You’re not going back far enough. You’re only going back to about 400 AD during the time of Origen and Augustine, the two people most responsible for starting the allegorical approach to eschatology. Before that, the New Testament and Apostolic Church held to a Post –Tribulational Pre-Millennial view.(arniem;43304)
The main reason we have interest now is because of the formation of the Nation of Israel in 1948. The prophecy clock began ticking again.
The rebirth of Israel certainly did help, although the “clock” as you say never stopped ticking…(arniem;43304)
Remember that "old" and "Historic Church" teaching had mainly abandoned any concept of Israel , and if anything they said the Church was now Israel. Many mistakes have been made and we continue to make some ourselves.
That is true.(arniem;43304)
Can you imagine standing on a street corner in Paris France in 1943 , reading out of the Bible , and saying one day all of Europe will be united , The Jews will return to Israel and again posses the promised land.
You’re not taking that far enough. One day the entire planet will be united, not just Europe. (But it won’t be under a “Revived Roman Empire”, that’s a myth.)(arniem;43304)
Who would believe the message? All of Europe was at war , the Jews were being lead to the slaughter , no such country of Isreal existed in anyones memory. You would sound like a nut , but your literal Bible interpretation would have been correct.My point is you cannot use the excuse that Rapture is a recent invention. Using that logic , so is Israel , so is United Europe.
That is true, and if it were the only reason for rejecting the Pre-Trib Rapture, I would totally ignore it. There are other reasons, however, which are contained within the Bible itself and have nothing to do with historical precedent.(arniem;43304)
By the way I have never taken a firm stand on the rapture timing question , but I certainly will not change the clear and literal teachings to my liking. To do so would be an error.
If the teachings are “clear and literal” as you say, then what’s the delay in taking a firm stand?

 

[Literalist-Luke]

(Elf;43305)
Obviously Revelation is not the only book in the bible which is symbolic.The only safe way of interpreting scripture is with scripture, interpreting the implied by the explicit.
Then why does "1000 years" not mean "1000 years"?

 

[Literalist-Luke]

(Elf;43308)
It is not quite that simple, If it were that simple there would be no problems. Ask the Jews, they will explain it much better for you.
Oh, I know there's a lot more to it than just my off-the-cuff explanation. My point was that the descendancy/ancestry issue is not an obstacle to there being a functioning Temple someday. You were suggesting that the Roman destruction of the geneological tables would prevent them from reconstructing the priesthood, etc., and my point was that it is not a problem, there will still be a Temple.

 

[Elf]

(Literalist-Luke;43321)
Then why does "1000 years" not mean "1000 years"?
Tomorrow I will present more Amil answers. This will help clarify my position, and help you see the way I believe. God Bless

 

[Elf]

(Literalist-Luke;43322)
Oh, I know there's a lot more to it than just my off-the-cuff explanation. My point was that the descendancy/ancestry issue is not an obstacle to there being a functioning Temple someday. You were suggesting that the Roman destruction of the geneological tables would prevent them from reconstructing the priesthood, etc., and my point was that it is not a problem, there will still be a Temple.
Yes you are probably correct in that sense, there could probably still be a temple. But with animal sacrifices? This is an abomination!

 

[Literalist-Luke]

(Elf;43323)
Tomorrow I will present more Amil answers. This will help clarify my position, and help you see the way I believe. God Bless
I'll look forward to it.

 

[Christina]

(Elf;43324)
Yes you are probably correct in that sense, there could probably still be a temple. But with animal sacrifices? This is an abomination!
Only to God this is the tribulation of antichrist not the Lords day antichrist will be runnig the show the Jews will agee with him at first.

 

[arniem]

The context used is that that 1000 years may seem slow to us , but not to God. God functions in eternity. There is no time there. The message has always clearly been that we are not to interpret thousands of years as slowness as God works out his plan. It has never been a mathematical formula for us to change a thousand into one , or one into a thousand. Never.

Furthermore, if you read the Rev 20 carefully, you will see that St. John saw the SOULS of those beheaded for Christ reigning with Him for 1000 years--not their bodies and souls reunited. So clearly, this reign is taking place in heaven (which is not bound by earthly chronometry).[/

If you read the next verse it says "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years"Six different times "a thousand years" is used in Rev. 20 . If this is not literal , We must ask what else is not literal in the chapter ? What else do we have liscence to change ?The measurement "a short time" is also used in Rev. 20:3 . This refers to how long Satan will be loosed after the 1000 years. We are not told precisely how long this short time is , but we are told precisely how long the 1000 year reign of Christ will be. It will be 1000 years. It will not be anything else.Many thanksArnie M.