- May 19, 2007
- 1,874
- 94
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
If we were to look at the debate and its origin we would have to admit the following:
The debate is that of the placement of the church in Revelations and when the rapture ocurrs.
The basis is almost exclusively based on these assumptions;
1. That MT 24-25 refers to the gentile church.
2. That Paul refers to seven trumpets.
3. That Revelations refers to the gentile church.
The words in Matthew are directed toward those that are present, the church is not even founded yet.
The inmediate fulfillment happens within one generation.
The tongues of flame and the sound of a rushing wind are present in the old testament and represent judgement.
The fact that only the hebrews and not the gentiles were to be effected is another reason for the referral to a hebrew church as the group to be addressed.
The events within MT 24-25 are based on the old testament.
To believe that Paul is basing his words refers to seven trumpets is to assume that he knew of Revelations which had yet to be written.
It contradicts the basis of prophecy as the word states that the word and spirit are one, he then had no basis.
If we were to follow the example where several prophets are to take turns...they were speaking on the basis of only the old testament, no doctrinal work was as of yet available, - it also makes us understand certain practical aspects of prophecy within the church.
If Paul had only the old testament, that only left him with NU 10, and only two trumpets.
The identification of the church within Revelations is quite a temptation;
1. You have to base yourself on Paul and his seven trumpets.
2. You have to assume that by being in the new testament it has to be there.
3. You have to assume that because the church is mentioned in MT 24-25, it has to be in Revelations.
4. You have to assume that MT 24-25 and Revelations can't be literal.
5. You also have to assume that all prophecy has to be figurate and not literal.
5. You have to assume that the many contradictions and endless debates by current interpretations are to be accepted in spite of the existence of an orderly, progressive revelation within scripture, as per the words of Paul.
6. Finally, you have to assume that you are only limited by current interpretations.
If you were to explore a newer, more practical alternative;
1. Nu 10 only mentions two trumpets.
2. The placement of only two trumpets removes the church before Revelations begins.
3. You can now interpret prophecy literally.
4. You can now see MT 24-25 and Revelations as being a scenario that describes the literal panorama that coincides with the many details that have their origin in the old testament.
5. The many references that are based on the destruction of the first temple are now repeated in the last says with a difference, as per Ezequiel, Daniel and Zechariah, the nations are judged and Jerusalem will be rescued.
6. It only makes sense in this case for hebrew prophecy to be fulfilled with hebrews.
Questioning what doesn't make sense is the only way to get around the endless debates. While you can never guarantee a totally objective approach, having a functional basis for our interpretations is a step in the right direction. The criteria you establish is the only thing you have for a greater sense of objectivity and credibility.
Ultimately, our subjecting interpretations to scrutiny and better criteria falls in line with the words of Paul when he states that we are to be sure of what we believe.
The debate is that of the placement of the church in Revelations and when the rapture ocurrs.
The basis is almost exclusively based on these assumptions;
1. That MT 24-25 refers to the gentile church.
2. That Paul refers to seven trumpets.
3. That Revelations refers to the gentile church.
The words in Matthew are directed toward those that are present, the church is not even founded yet.
The inmediate fulfillment happens within one generation.
The tongues of flame and the sound of a rushing wind are present in the old testament and represent judgement.
The fact that only the hebrews and not the gentiles were to be effected is another reason for the referral to a hebrew church as the group to be addressed.
The events within MT 24-25 are based on the old testament.
To believe that Paul is basing his words refers to seven trumpets is to assume that he knew of Revelations which had yet to be written.
It contradicts the basis of prophecy as the word states that the word and spirit are one, he then had no basis.
If we were to follow the example where several prophets are to take turns...they were speaking on the basis of only the old testament, no doctrinal work was as of yet available, - it also makes us understand certain practical aspects of prophecy within the church.
If Paul had only the old testament, that only left him with NU 10, and only two trumpets.
The identification of the church within Revelations is quite a temptation;
1. You have to base yourself on Paul and his seven trumpets.
2. You have to assume that by being in the new testament it has to be there.
3. You have to assume that because the church is mentioned in MT 24-25, it has to be in Revelations.
4. You have to assume that MT 24-25 and Revelations can't be literal.
5. You also have to assume that all prophecy has to be figurate and not literal.
5. You have to assume that the many contradictions and endless debates by current interpretations are to be accepted in spite of the existence of an orderly, progressive revelation within scripture, as per the words of Paul.
6. Finally, you have to assume that you are only limited by current interpretations.
If you were to explore a newer, more practical alternative;
1. Nu 10 only mentions two trumpets.
2. The placement of only two trumpets removes the church before Revelations begins.
3. You can now interpret prophecy literally.
4. You can now see MT 24-25 and Revelations as being a scenario that describes the literal panorama that coincides with the many details that have their origin in the old testament.
5. The many references that are based on the destruction of the first temple are now repeated in the last says with a difference, as per Ezequiel, Daniel and Zechariah, the nations are judged and Jerusalem will be rescued.
6. It only makes sense in this case for hebrew prophecy to be fulfilled with hebrews.
Questioning what doesn't make sense is the only way to get around the endless debates. While you can never guarantee a totally objective approach, having a functional basis for our interpretations is a step in the right direction. The criteria you establish is the only thing you have for a greater sense of objectivity and credibility.
Ultimately, our subjecting interpretations to scrutiny and better criteria falls in line with the words of Paul when he states that we are to be sure of what we believe.