I'm asking futurists why they read Revelation that way?

Merlinius · Dec 2, 2011

JerryShugart said:
The following promises to David in regard to the land were made hundreds of years AFTER the verses which you quoted were written:

"Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant DavidI will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime" (2 Sam.7:8,10).

Therefore we can understand that the Lord has made promises to David in respect to the promised land that have not yet been fulfilled.There has never been a time when the children of Israel have been brought back to the promised land and have not "moved no more" out of their land" (unless that is being fulfilled now). So it is obvious that not "all" of the promises made to David in regard to the promised land were fulfilled BEFORE the first century or at the time when the book of Joshua was written.

Fulfilled only in the Heavenly Country as disclosed in the New Testament.
Read Hebrews 11 as I gave you earlier.

Merlinius · Dec 2, 2011

JerryShugart said:
Why do you CONTINUE TO IGNORE all of the verses which I quoted which are things that must happen before the Lord Jesus will be seen by all. Perhaps this time you will actually address them instead of IGNOING them:

Bbefore He will come in the clouds there will be signs in the sun and moon and the nations will be in fear of the things which will then be coming upon the earth:

"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk.21:25-27).

The Lord Jesus makes it plain that at that time there will be a world wide harvest upon the earth. Later in the same discourse He says:

"And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:34-35).

This has never happened in the history of the world so I cannot force my mind into believing that the following prophecy has already been fulfilled:

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Mt.24:30).

Why do you not address all of these events which will happen at the time of His coming to earth? Again, evidently you have been taught that you can just IGNORE any verse that does not match the fables which have been invented by man.

When you admit that 'clouds' in scriptures is witnesses, as has been proven, then you will understand the rest of scriptures. Until then, you have no clue.

John S · Dec 2, 2011

Merlinius said:
It doesn't hurt to repeat I guess, simple copy and paste;

Originally Posted by John S

Merlinius - Have you seen Christ come in His Glory in the clouds?
If not, do you know of anyone who has?

Yes of course I see the Glory of Christ Come in the clouds. How else do you think folk have received Him down through the last 2000 years?

Your initial statement was - People have seen Christ come in His Glory in the clouds.
You new statement is - People have seen the Glory of Christ in the clouds.

So which is it? Have people seen Christ or have they seen clouds?

Biblewriter · Dec 2, 2011

eclipsenow said:
Biblewriter said:If they are only metaphors, they are not true.
I think that about does it for me. You're not worth pursuing this with any more with ridiculous statements like that. A vast body of biblical literature has just been written off as 'not true' because it might contain metaphors. It's all lies. Just like when Jesus taught in parables. They were all lies as well. And when Revelation said Jesus had 7 eyes and 7 horns and a sword coming out of his mouth? Metaphor = Lies. Revelation was lying. There's no truth there! Are you *really* going to maintain that the bible is not allowed to speak in metaphor? What are you going to do with Revelation, with Jesus parables, with 'the sun going down', with 'floodgates of heaven opened', with a thousand other language metaphors in the bible? Does the bible lie mate? If I point you to a figure of speech, analogy, or metaphor, is it REALLY A LIE?

That's just an absurd position taken by someone driven to extremes.

You are the one driven to the extreme of an absurd position. If you go back and read what I said, and your answer, You will see that you have completely distorted and misrepresented what I said. I did not say that metaphors were lies. I said that if explicit statements of coming events were ONLY metaphore, then they were lies. If God said XYZ is going to happen, and He had no intention of ever making xyz happen, but was reaally saying that abc was going to happen, THEN the statement that xyz was going to happen would have been a lie.

You are forgetting that I clearly recognized that both apocalyptical language and figures of speech exist in the Bible. I never, even for a moment denied this. But I have from the beginning of our discussion made it exceedinglu clear that I was ONLY talking about those prophecies that are explicitly stated in plain language.

Now you pronounced that the prophecies in Micah were metaphors. What was your evidence? That it was obvious!!!! It may be obvious to someone who is simply unwilling to believe that God could have actually meant what He said.

Your entire argument, thus far in our discussion, has been twofold.

1 It is obvious.
2 Many great teachers have said it.

Neither of these arguments have a particle of probative value.

I'm not going to go chasing through the OT with you and try and catch every ball you toss my way. I explicitly asked everyone on this thread to try and pick the top 2 or 3 reasons they are futurists, and you chose Micah. Then you refused to acknowledge the obvious metaphors in the passages. Was that not your top reason for being a futurist? Oh well. I did ask you to.

You complained that I had not said anything specific, so I gave you a few specifics. But the format you desire to use is fundamentally unfair. You want to maintain your system of doctrine, but you do not want us to present proof that it is erroneous.

But the one thing I will say about this Ezekiel passage you are pushing literally is that sometimes the prophets mix promises of the physical restoration of Israel under Persia with the spiritual restoration of all mankind that will occur IN Israel when the Lord was incarnate there.

I stress Ezekiel 36 for two reasons. First, because it is not addressed to a group of people, it is addressed to a piece of real estate. If it were only addressed to Israel, you would imagine that this meant the church. But it is not addressed to Israel, but to the physical land of Israel.

The second reason I stress this passage is because it very explicitly says that "all Israel, even all of it" will be restored to the land. There is absolutely no way to even pretend that this has ever happened. So these two things come together here in this chapter. A prophecy that simply cannot be dismissed as only talking about the church, and a prophecy that cannot be pretended to have ever been fulfilled.

When Jesus was on the cross, all God's wrath and fury was poured out on Him. This is a fact, not a metaphor for something bigger. God's rule over the church involves each and every individual Christian accepting God's wrath on Jesus in place of God's wrath over me. He DOES rule with his fury poured out; both now on Jesus, and in the future when his wrath against sin and rebellion will be physically manifest on Judgement Day.

God only spoke 'face to face' with Moses hid in a cave on a Mountain, so that Moses wasn't destroyed. We simply cannot speak to God face to face. The bible makes that clear. Except, hold on a minute, yes we CAN! When God put aside his glory and became fully human. Then God well and truly pleaded with Israel to repent.

But he never did anything even remotely resembling what we read in Ezekiel 20.

You shouldn't read the King James Version... it messes with your writing. "Like he pled..." Really? I'd be a bit embarrassed to write 'like he pled' in a public place.

Because you're having such trouble reading the Old Testament I think we should probably hang out in Romans for a while. Yes Paul was speaking of the ethnic Jews, just as Jesus did when he warned the Pharisees...
[/quote]

You want to do this because you are wholly unable to answer arguments based on the Old Testament.

eclipsenow · Dec 2, 2011

Hi Merlinus,

I agree with your theological outcomes, but not how you get there. Not yet anyway.

I'm all for recognising common Jewish metaphors and symbols and number plays, really I am. But I have to say I'm not that convinced by the 'clouds' argument that you are using.

1. Because my Amillennial framework is not threatened by Jesus briefly referring to his final return on Judgement Day.

2. Because I see 'Clouds' used SO many other ways in the bible. Clouds is simply NOT always a cloud of witnesses. Can you show me a number of references that assert this? As far as I can tell, you're grabbing one verse, the 'clouds of witnesses', and using it to over-ride other more common references to clouds.

God's presence with Israel during the Exodus, and the glory of the Lord.
The cloud that led the Israelites through the desert became a common symbol of God's presence with them, such as when they again show up around Mt Zion whenever God makes an appearance! They also represent the glory of the Lord.

Ezekiel 10:4
Then the glory of the LORD rose from above the cherubim and moved to the threshold of the temple. The cloud filled the temple, and the court was full of the radiance of the glory of the LORD.

Clouds are closer to God/gods
It's also like the high mountains... imagery of 'height' to be 'up' where the gods are. EG:
Isaiah 14:14
I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.

It's a metaphor for being nearer 'God's land'.

Judgement
Isaiah 30:27
See, the Name of the LORD comes from afar, with burning anger and dense clouds of smoke; his lips are full of wrath, and his tongue is a consuming fire.
Isaiah 30:30
The LORD will cause people to hear his majestic voice and will make them see his arm coming down with raging anger and consuming fire, with cloudburst, thunderstorm and hail.
Ezekiel 30:3
For the day is near, the day of the LORD is near a day of clouds, a time of doom for the nations.
Ezekiel 30:18
Dark will be the day at Tahpanhes when I break the yoke of Egypt; there her proud strength will come to an end. She will be covered with clouds, and her villages will go into captivity.

And most relevant, the Cloud Rider
The CLOUD RIDER is an enormously important figure in the Ancient World. Prophetic use of it is a rebuke against Baal worshippers and other pagan religions that want to claim their gods as the 'cloud riders'. It was such a common image that claiming "My god is the cloud-rider" is like saying "My god RULES, OK!"

EG:

Isaiah 19:1
[ A Prophecy Against Egypt ] A prophecy against Egypt: See, the LORD rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt. The idols of Egypt tremble before him, and the hearts of the Egyptians melt with fear.

Daniel 7:13
In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.

The 'cloud rider' image is even enacted as Jesus ascends to heaven.
Acts 1:
9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

Also:
1 Thessalonians 4:

17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

I'm sorry to disagree, but I just don't find the Lord discussing Judgement Day to be that threatening to Amillennialism. We know the Lord will return one day, and that is one of the only things we can say we know about the future.

(Along with the fact that the Lord will ensure his church survives, no matter the persecution, and that He loves us and will be with us to the end of the age).

I am also completely happy with the Lord predicting the fall of the Temple within the disciples generation. It's simply what he was discussing as they sat on the Mount of Olives looking down at the Temple mount. Well, part of what he was discussing. He was also referring to the fulfilment of the Old Covenant and the beginning of the New Covenant of grace after his death and resurrection.

So in the Olivet Discourse Jesus refers to 'these things' (the destruction of the temple and many false Jewish Messiahs) that would happen in that generation. But Jesus has a brief discussion about how UNAMBIGUOUS, how CERTAIN the entire world will be when HE returns on Judgement Day precisely because they will see the 'Cloud Rider'.

Also, the stuff about us being 'caught up in the air'? That's fantastic imagery about joining the victory of the Cloud Rider to escape the judgement, down below. Just like Noah caught up in his ark to be away from the floods!

Now, we all know god doesn't live in the sky up on a cloud. It's imagery. "Up" will be away from the judgement; "down" is left behind in the judgement. But the reality is we just cannot imagine what will happen as the Lord rewrites the laws of physics so that we can live forever with physical bodies in a new space-time continuum, with HIM present with us. It's unimaginable. No wonder God condenscends to use 'Cloud Rider' imagery!

Biblewriter · Dec 2, 2011

eclipsenow said:
Some here almost appear to rest their entire case on 'Erroneous' and his teachings, and I do not.

The only person in this discussion who has rested his case on the word of any human author is you. You have repeatedly appealed to the authority of the writers you imagine have a great deal of understanding, and even reproved me because you concluded, without any evidence, that I had never read what they have to say.

I think the NT makes a strong enough case for Jesus as the fulfilment of all the Old Testament promises. But I will quote Irenaeus below, just to highlight the contradiction between what Biblewriter wants to believe from Irenaeus, and what he wants to reject. He picks and chooses according to what Darby says to pick and choose from!

Actually, I have read very little of what Darby wrote on eschatology. And Darby never credited any authority whatsoever to any human author, as you do.

All purposes for Israel were fulfilled when Jesus died and rose again. He tore down the temple and rebuilt it in 3 days. He is now our Prophet, Priest, and King. The Kingdom of God is now made of Jews and Gentiles who are believers in Christ — there IS NO OTHER KINGDOM OF GOD! There is NO OTHER name under heaven by which men can be saved.

The idea that there is still a special plan for Israel is called Dispensationalism. It was started in 1830 by Darby. Darby wanted us to believe the church had somehow missed this 'essential' means of understanding the bible in 'Dispensational periods' as a hermeneutic for understanding the whole bible. Eventually Darby said that ONLY Dispensationalists were Christians! (That's a cult-like attitude!)

This is an out-and-out lie. Darby repeatedly stressed that error in doctrine, other than basic Christian doctrine - the central elements of the faith, had nothing to do with salvation. The main thrust of his ministry was the sin of dividing from other Christians just because we do not agree with them.

The video below explains that while some of the early church fathers may have been Premil, they were NOT Dispensationalist. They really sound like Covenant theologians that see the whole unfolding plan of God around the one Covenant of Grace which began in the nation of Israel and was fulfilled in the person and works of Jesus.

EG: Justyn Martyr believed we are the true spiritual descendants of Abraham. The WHOLE bible is a unified purpose with the same message from the beginning to end all focussing on Jesus Christ.

Irenaeus: "But in Christ every blessing [is summed up], and therefore the latter people has snatched away the blessings of the former from the Father, just as Jacob took away the blessings of Esau. For which cause his brother suffered the plots and persecutions of a brother, just as the Church suffers this self-same thing from the Jews."

Ambrosiaster: "Thus whoever believes that Christ Jesus was promised to Abraham is a child of Abraham and a brother of Isaac. Abraham was told that all the nations would be blessed in his offspring. This happened not in Isaac, but in him who was promised to Abraham in Isaac, that is, Christ, in whom all the nations are blessed when they believe.

More at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLD_vuoPQzM

I have already documented the falsehood of this claim in Christian forums. Here is a link to the thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7542790-14/

In case the link does not work, this thread is titled "Dispensational Doctrine Before the Year 200," and can be found in the sub-forum titled "Patristics" in the "Christian History" forum. In this thread I have reviewed the doctrine of every Christian who wrote anything on eschatology before the year 200, and whose writings have been preserved. And I conclusively proved that the end time scenario seen by Irenaeus was precisely what is believed by Dispensationalists of the persuasion that today is called the mid trib rapture.

I have already presented enough evidence for futurism to convince anyone who is not blinded by prejudice. So I am going to hand my baton to JerrySugart, who is a newbie I do not know, but seems quite capable of expounding the scriptures. I do not intend to jump in here again unless I notice something as egregious as the post I am answering here.

I will add only one final word of warning. I have seen a few comments in this thread that had an anti-semitic flavor, and cannot leave without warning all of you that God will not take such comments lightly.

eclipsenow · Dec 2, 2011

Biblewriter said:
The only person in this discussion who has rested his case on the word of any human author is you. You have repeatedly appealed to the authority of the writers you imagine have a great deal of understanding, and even reproved me because you concluded, without any evidence, that I had never read what they have to say.

Actually, I have read very little of what Darby wrote on eschatology. And Darby never credited any authority whatsoever to any human author, as you do.

Let's get this snotty "I'm holier than you because I only listen to God while you listen to the vile teachings of man" rubbish out of the way, shall we? You and I both read the bible. We both want to understand it. We disagree. One, or both, of us is wrong about what the bible actually says.

So let's try and be gracious about one another's motives, shall we? Let's assume this is a problem of understanding, not the heart, shall we? You have your sources and I have mine. When I quote people I respect I'm quoting their interpretation for speed of reference, and because I simply agree with their reading of the bible. I wouldn't quote their view if I didn't SEE it in the bible, OK?

As it is, you STILL haven't properly explained why you ignore the obvious metaphors of God melting the Samarian mountain and raising the temple mountain. If you read those literally, why? What possible benefit is it to my faith to believe God is going to ZAP some mountain away, and raise another one up a bit?

Here I am, a forgiven sinner, trusting that my sins against a justly angry Judge have been paid for by the unfair murder of His son!

Here I am, an eternal soul who will one day witness God remaking the ENTIRE COSMOS and a wedding a New Heaven and New Earth together somehow.

Here I am, a Gentile included in these final, eternal promises of Abraham that focus on our heavenly Zion, our eternal 'land', our new home with God as our King.

And you want to fixate on one little mountain somewhere melting down and another little mountain becoming bigger, literally. Not metaphorically to fulfil these ENORMOUS, COSMOS changing SINNER forgiving, GOD-MAN KILLING and RESURRECTING themes, but literal changes in geology. A mountain falls, and a mountain rises.

As if this were important?

Can you see how it just doesn't fit with the big picture reading of the New Testament?

eclipsenow · Dec 2, 2011

Biblewriter said:
I have already documented the falsehood of this claim in Christian forums. Here is a link to the thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7542790-14/

In case the link does not work, this thread is titled "Dispensational Doctrine Before the Year 200," and can be found in the sub-forum titled "Patristics" in the "Christian History" forum. In this thread I have reviewed the doctrine of every Christian who wrote anything on eschatology before the year 200, and whose writings have been preserved. And I conclusively proved that the end time scenario seen by Irenaeus was precisely what is believed by Dispensationalists of the persuasion that today is called the mid trib rapture.

Rubbish, Dispyism was invented by Darby.

Biblewriter · Dec 3, 2011

eclipsenow said:
Let's get this snotty "I'm holier than you because I only listen to God while you listen to the vile teachings of man" rubbish out of the way, shall we?

You are again totally misrepresenting what I said. I have not, and did not ever, even once, claim any kind of authority for any writings outside of the Bible itself. But you repeatedly did that very thing.

You and I both read the bible. We both want to understand it. We disagree. One, or both, of us is wrong about what the bible actually says.

So let's try and be gracious about one another's motives, shall we?

I said nothing whatsoever about motives. I spoke only of actions.

Let's assume this is a problem of understanding, not the heart, shall we? You have your sources and I have mine. When I quote people I respect I'm quoting their interpretation for speed of reference, and because I simply agree with their reading of the bible. I wouldn't quote their view if I didn't SEE it in the bible, OK?

As it is, you STILL haven't properly explained why you ignore the obvious metaphors of God melting the Samarian mountain and raising the temple mountain. If you read those literally, why?

I simply believe the melting mountain because that's what God said he would do. And I pointed out to you that the scriptures do not even say that a mountain would be raised, if you look at the Hebrew.

What possible benefit is it to my faith to believe God is going to ZAP some mountain away, and raise another one up a bit?

Here I am, a forgiven sinner, trusting that my sins against a justly angry Judge have been paid for by the unfair murder of His son!

Here I am, an eternal soul who will one day witness God remaking the ENTIRE COSMOS and a wedding a New Heaven and New Earth together somehow.

Here I am, a Gentile included in these final, eternal promises of Abraham that focus on our heavenly Zion, our eternal 'land', our new home with God as our King.

And you want to fixate on one little mountain somewhere melting down and another little mountain becoming bigger, literally. Not metaphorically to fulfil these ENORMOUS, COSMOS changing SINNER forgiving, GOD-MAN KILLING and RESURRECTING themes, but literal changes in geology. A mountain falls, and a mountain rises.

As if this were important?

Can you see how it just doesn't fit with the big picture reading of the New Testament?

You are right that the melting mountain, in and by itself, is not a major issue. But you were the one that wanted to discuss the mountain. You raised it as "an obvious metaphor," and I rejected (and still reject) your assertion that it was "obviously" a metaphor. But the reason you raised this point is indeed a major issue.

You raised it as an excuse to deny a possible literal fulfillment of the prophecy about the coming Assyrian. You claimed that this was also obviously a metaphor. Why? Because there is no future fulfillment of prophecy. This is indeed a major issue.

I pointed out that if God explicitly said something was going to happen, and He had no intention of ever making that thing happen, he would have been lying. You dismissed this as "gobbledegook." Then you gave a number of examples of prophetic figures that God used, and claimed I was saying that these things would be literally fulfilled. But not even one of the examples you used, other than the melting mountains, was something that God explicitly said would happen. You asked for specific examples, and then complained when I gave them.

You are unwilling to even entertain the possibility that this passage could actually be a prophecy of the future, so you insist it has to be a metaphor.

You have in every way demonstrated that you are not willing to discuss things reasonably. So I am "over and out."

Biblewriter · Dec 3, 2011

eclipsenow said:
Rubbish, Dispyism was invented by Darby.

Then go to the thread and prove it wrong.

I quoted actual words of early Christian teachers laying out doctrine now taught by dispensationalists.

eclipsenow · Dec 3, 2011

I spoke only of actions.I simply believe the melting mountain because that's what God said he would do.

Do you believe Jesus has 7 eyes and 7 horns, because that's what God says in Revelation?

Do you believe there is a 7-fold Holy Spirit, because THAT'S WHAT GOD SAYS! (In Revelation!)

Huh? Come on dude, GOD SAID IT THEREFORE YOU MUST BELIEVE IT!

This is basically how you shout down to us mere mortals that think God is entitled to use colourful metaphors in the bible now and then, especially when He has done so from the beginning, through his prophets, and then uses colourful parables and stories and metaphors in PERSON as Jesus, the story-teller. But hush hush! We all have to UNDERGO A LOBOTOMY to please you and just 'believe' what we read... without the reading part. For reading involves understanding context and hermeneutics and seeing the overall themes of the true Covenant that runs between God and His people in both Old and New Testaments. But you don't want any of that.

And I pointed out to you that the scriptures do not even say that a mountain would be raised, if you look at the Hebrew.

You think you proved that; but the verses around your word games proved you to be misleading. You just cannot admit high doses of fairly common biblical metaphors in Micah as it might prove your other precious 'literalistic' readings suspect.

You are right that the melting mountain, in and by itself, is not a major issue. But you were the one that wanted to discuss the mountain. You raised it as "an obvious metaphor," and I rejected (and still reject) your assertion that it was "obviously" a metaphor. But the reason you raised this point is indeed a major issue.

It's called reading! You wanted to raise Micah as one of your most important verses to prove futurism. So I looked at the book generally and found lots of metaphors and symbolism.

You quoted a highly symbolic passage involving the defeat of God's enemies, a theme I see again and again in Scripture but spoken of in completely different ways. All of those old enemies of God are now lost to history. Did the prophets fail? No! But the New Testament wraps it all up; John opens the sealed scroll Daniel was told to seal, and John interprets all these loose ends for us. It's the gospel, through and through.

You raised it as an excuse to deny a possible literal fulfillment of the prophecy about the coming Assyrian. You claimed that this was also obviously a metaphor. Why? Because there is no future fulfillment of prophecy. This is indeed a major issue.

No, not because there is no future prophecy but because it was ALL fulfilled in the past! One day you actually need to read some Covenant Theology if you are going to critique it. Jesus fulfilled EVERYTHING in a spiritual 'now and not yet' sense. Gods enemies were defeated, Satan thrown down, sin judged, death defeated, the old order passed away and the new order recreated in Jesus, the firstfruits.

Your problem is your gospel message is too small. You chop and snip at it every time you break off a promise and stick it onto categories of National Israel that are almost blasphemous! You Dispy's even go on about rebuilding the temple! Why? So that blasphemies can occur? Why on EARTH would Dispy's want the temple rebuilt? Aren't we, the church, the temple of God? Didn't Jesus say he would destroy the temple and raise it again, in his body? Didn't Hebrews point out we have come to a heavenly Mt Zion, and that the Earthly temple was ONLY EVER A METAPHOR of the one in heaven? Didn't Jesus death and resurrection make sacrificing animals in the temple irrelevant, indeed, blasphemous?

All God's promises to Abraham regarding a "great nation" living God's way in God's land are fulfilled in eschatological tension. WE are God's people living God's way in God's land, the ENTIRE WORLD! Yet it is not yet finished. We await the eschaton, the Last Day, when the Lord will bring the fullness of all these things. So we live both in heaven right now (Ephesians) and not there yet; we belong to 2 kingdoms; above, and below, here on earth.

But you dispy's have lost all this and chopped off silly bits and pieces for national Israel, missing the real significance.

I pointed out that if God explicitly said something was going to happen, and He had no intention of ever making that thing happen, he would have been lying.

Yes, you did play silly word games by trying to turn a metaphor into a lie, and I forgave you for it before because I thought you were overtired and running out of steam. So I pretty much ignored it. But now you've gone and repeated this silliness.

It's seems you need to look up a dictionary. Study 'metaphor' and 'symbolism' and then study 'lies' and 'deceit'. You'll be amazed. Metaphors can be used to illustrate truth, lies, propaganda, or documentary. They are merely a literary tool! Whether or not they communicate truth depends on how the author is using them! Metaphor DOES NOT equal lies, that's just the argument of a kid who hasn't done High School English.

Now be a good boy and run along and find a dictionary, will you?

eclipsenow · Dec 3, 2011

Biblewriter said:
Now you pronounced that the prophecies in Micah were metaphors. What was your evidence? That it was obvious!!!! It may be obvious to someone who is simply unwilling to believe that God could have actually meant what He said.

Your entire argument, thus far in our discussion, has been twofold.

1 It is obvious.
2 Many great teachers have said it.

I think I would phrase it this way for Micah:

1. It is obvious because the passages involved are actually about judging the Samarians and Assyrians and this was achieved. Done. They were defeated in the past. The reference to the Holy Mountains merely illustrate the defeat of Samaria's temple and the rise to prominence of Jerusalem as the spiritual centre of the world when the God-Man dies and is resurrected.
2. The Assyrians were eventually judged and defeated, but God used the Babylonians. Then God judged them again. The picture language of 7 shepherds and 8 leaders represented that God would use HIS perfect means to protect Israel. Sometimes there is great flexibility in how God then lets these things happen.
3. Assyria and Moab and Edom etc have all vanished. As a follower of Dispenationalism, which only started in 1830 with Darby, you seem bound to looking for 'unfulfilled' scriptures with an extreme prejudice against any rational reading of how history has already fulfilled those prophecies in a national sense.
4. However, living under eschatological tension as we do, there is a profound sense in which God's enemies have NOT been defeated. Yes all evil was defeated on the cross. But no, we do not live in a perfect world. So we wait for the Last Day when ALL of these current spiritual realities will become manifest physical realities.

I stress Ezekiel 36 for two reasons. First, because it is not addressed to a group of people, it is addressed to a piece of real estate. If it were only addressed to Israel, you would imagine that this meant the church. But it is not addressed to Israel, but to the physical land of Israel.

The second reason I stress this passage is because it very explicitly says that "all Israel, even all of it" will be restored to the land. There is absolutely no way to even pretend that this has ever happened.

You're thinking too small. I haven't had time to really study Ezekiel in as much depth as I recently studied Micah... I wanted you to come out with your top verses first, not weeks later! But anyway, if I were to run with my gut reaction to your claims about Ezekiel 36, it would be that it was, again, a metaphor for the over-abundance and perfect restoration of God's Kingdom when the Messiah comes.

Now here's the real kicker. When God's Kingdom is fundamentally transformed by the cross into the church, we find that 'Israel', us Christian believers today, have had the totality of the land restored to us and more. We now have the ENTIRE PLANET!

Hebrews 11:
13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better countrya heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

Woah! That's the inspired author of Hebrew basically calling the ENTIRE LAND COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM A METAPHOR! See how much larger the spiritual realities are?

Now, you also claimed earlier that early church fathers taught Dispensationalism.That's not true. They might have had some premil eschatology, I'll allow that. But your charge is far more important because it tries to justify Dispensationalism, which basically claims God tried different ideas and as each one failed moved onto the next one.

Instead, we find the early church fathers were Covenant theologians who saw the whole Old Testament inevitably moving towards the covenant of grace as one redemptive plan of history.

As the Covenant theology wiki says:

History

Part of the series on
17th Century Scholasticism

Title page of the Calov Bible Background Protestant Reformation
Counter-Reformation
Aristotelianism
Scholasticism
Patristics

17th Century Scholastics Second scholasticism of the Jesuits
Lutheran scholasticism during Lutheran Orthodoxy
Ramism among the Calvinist scholastics
Metaphysical poets in the Church of England

Reactions within Christianity Labadists against the Jesuits
Pietism against orthodox Lutherans
Nadere Reformatie within Dutch Calvinism
Richard Hooker against the Ramists

Reactions within Philosophy Modernists against Roman Catholics
Neologists against Lutherans
Spinozists against Dutch Calvinists
Deists against English Christianity
John Locke against Bishop Stillingfleet

This box: view · talk · edit Concepts foundational to covenant theology can be found in the writings of Church Fathers such as Irenaeus and Augustine. Huldrych Zwingli and Johannes Oecolampadius were among the first reformers to speak of God's salvation economy under the categories of a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. John Calvin (Institutes 2:9-11), like Heinrich Bullinger (A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God), focussed on the continuity of the covenant of grace, but taught the substance of what became classic covenant theology in terms of Law and Gospel. Early post-reformation writings, including Zacharius Ursinus (15341583) in Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (published posthumously, 1591), Caspar Olevianus (15361587) in Concerning the Substance of the Covenant of Grace between God and the Elect (De substantia foederis gratuiti inter deum et electos, 1585), and Scottish Theologian Robert Rollock (15551599) in A Treatise of our Effectual Calling (Tractatus de vocatione efficaci, 1597), developed the covenant of works and covenant of grace scheme along the lines of the law-gospel distinction.[3]
Covenant theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biblewriter · Dec 3, 2011

eclipsenow said:
I think I would phrase it this way for Micah:

1. It is obvious because the passages involved are actually about judging the Samarians and Assyrians and this was achieved. Done. They were defeated in the past. The reference to the Holy Mountains merely illustrate the defeat of Samaria's temple and the rise to prominence of Jerusalem as the spiritual centre of the world when the God-Man dies and is resurrected.
2. The Assyrians were eventually judged and defeated, but God used the Babylonians. Then God judged them again. The picture language of 7 shepherds and 8 leaders represented that God would use HIS perfect means to protect Israel. Sometimes there is great flexibility in how God then lets these things happen.
3. Assyria and Moab and Edom etc have all vanished. As a follower of Dispenationalism, which only started in 1830 with Darby, you seem bound to looking for 'unfulfilled' scriptures with an extreme prejudice against any rational reading of how history has already fulfilled those prophecies in a national sense.
4. However, living under eschatological tension as we do, there is a profound sense in which God's enemies have NOT been defeated. Yes all evil was defeated on the cross. But no, we do not live in a perfect world. So we wait for the Last Day when ALL of these current spiritual realities will become manifest physical realities.

You're thinking too small. I haven't had time to really study Ezekiel in as much depth as I recently studied Micah... I wanted you to come out with your top verses first, not weeks later! But anyway, if I were to run with my gut reaction to your claims about Ezekiel 36, it would be that it was, again, a metaphor for the over-abundance and perfect restoration of God's Kingdom when the Messiah comes.

Now here's the real kicker. When God's Kingdom is fundamentally transformed by the cross into the church, we find that 'Israel', us Christian believers today, have had the totality of the land restored to us and more. We now have the ENTIRE PLANET!

Hebrews 11:
13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

Woah! That's the inspired author of Hebrew basically calling the ENTIRE LAND COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM A METAPHOR! See how much larger the spiritual realities are?

Now, you also claimed earlier that early church fathers taught Dispensationalism.That's not true. They might have had some premil eschatology, I'll allow that. But your charge is far more important because it tries to justify Dispensationalism, which basically claims God tried different ideas and as each one failed moved onto the next one.

Instead, we find the early church fathers were Covenant theologians who saw the whole Old Testament inevitably moving towards the covenant of grace as one redemptive plan of history.

As the Covenant theology wiki says:

History

Part of the series on
17th Century Scholasticism Title page of the Calov Bible Background Protestant Reformation
Counter-Reformation
Aristotelianism
Scholasticism
Patristics

17th Century Scholastics Second scholasticism of the Jesuits
Lutheran scholasticism during Lutheran Orthodoxy
Ramism among the Calvinist scholastics
Metaphysical poets in the Church of England

Reactions within Christianity Labadists against the Jesuits
Pietism against orthodox Lutherans
Nadere Reformatie within Dutch Calvinism
Richard Hooker against the Ramists

Reactions within Philosophy Modernists against Roman Catholics
Neologists against Lutherans
Spinozists against Dutch Calvinists
Deists against English Christianity
John Locke against Bishop Stillingfleet

This box: view · talk · edit Concepts foundational to covenant theology can be found in the writings of Church Fathers such as Irenaeus and Augustine. Huldrych Zwingli and Johannes Oecolampadius were among the first reformers to speak of God's salvation economy under the categories of a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. John Calvin (Institutes 2:9-11), like Heinrich Bullinger (A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God), focussed on the continuity of the covenant of grace, but taught the substance of what became classic covenant theology in terms of Law and Gospel. Early post-reformation writings, including Zacharius Ursinus (1534–1583) in Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (published posthumously, 1591), Caspar Olevianus (1536–1587) in Concerning the Substance of the Covenant of Grace between God and the Elect (De substantia foederis gratuiti inter deum et electos, 1585), and Scottish Theologian Robert Rollock (1555–1599) in A Treatise of our Effectual Calling (Tractatus de vocatione efficaci, 1597), developed the covenant of works and covenant of grace scheme along the lines of the law-gospel distinction.[3]
Covenant theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In giving this answer, you made the same mistake you make in studying the scriptures. Instead of studying the writings in question themselves, you studied what others have written about what they said.

I didn't read what others said about what these men taught. I read their eschatological writings myself, in their entireties.

You can prove absolutely nothing by quoting what others have written about what they said. Go to the Christian Forums thread I referenced and try to disprove the exact quotations I gave there. Here it is again.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7542790-14/

You will be less likely to make a fool of yourself if you read the entire multi-part OP before trrying answer what it says. That will be very hard, for it does not contain short excerpts, but entire paragraphs to show the contexts of the quotations.

Among other things, Irenaeus spoke of a rapture before a time of great tribulation, of all things! Go read it and see for yourself.

And I did not quote them to try to "justify" dispensationalism. Who taught a doctrine in the past, or when they taught it, has no bearing on the question of whether or not it is correct. I quoted them only to disprove the false claim that dispensational doctrine was never taught before the time of Darby.

JerryShugart · Dec 3, 2011

Merlinius said:
When you admit that 'clouds' in scriptures is witnesses, as has been proven, then you will understand the rest of scriptures. Until then, you have no clue.

If you actually have an explanation for the verses which I quoted then let us hear them. Since you continue to remain silent about them I canm only conclude that you have no explanation that makes sense.

Bbefore He will come in the clouds there will be signs in the sun and moon and the nations will be in fear of the things which will then be coming upon the earth:

"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk.21:25-27).

The Lord Jesus makes it plain that at that time there will be a world wide harvest upon the earth. Later in the same discourse He says:

"And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:34-35).

This has never happened in the history of the world so I cannot force my mind into believing that the following prophecy has already been fulfilled:

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Mt.24:30).

It is one thing to SAY that you have an explanation for the verses which I quoted (Luke 21:25-27 & uke 21:34-35) but that is an entirely different thing than actually telling us what that explanation is.

You either have an explanation or you don't. What is it?

Thanks!

Merlinius · Dec 3, 2011

John S said:
Your initial statement was - People have seen Christ come in His Glory in the clouds.
You new statement is - People have seen the Glory of Christ in the clouds.

So which is it? Have people seen Christ or have they seen clouds?

What's the difference?

(Rom 12:5) So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

(Mat 25:40) And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

When you receive Christ come in His Glory, in His clouds of Glory, in the clouds... whatever, then you will understand this;

(2Co 3:18) But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

And this is the Glory we behold, the Glory we ARE, shining in the face of Christ;

(2Co 4:6) For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

This is the Glory I've been referring you to in the Word of God. It is how Christ COMES into His believers. By the preaching of His witnesses, His "messengers" (angels) in the "clouds of Glory".

Are you a believer?

John S · Dec 3, 2011

What's the difference between seeing Jesus Christ and seeing clouds? Oh my.

"Are you a believer?" That's your response? Attack me because I caught you in a lie. WOW.

eclipsenow · Dec 3, 2011

Biblewriter said:
I
http://www.christianforums.com/t7542790-14/

You will be less likely to make a fool of yourself if you read the entire multi-part OP before trrying answer what it says. That will be very hard, for it does not contain short excerpts, but entire paragraphs to show the contexts of the quotations.

Among other things, Irenaeus spoke of a rapture before a time of great tribulation, of all things! Go read it and see for yourself.

I SAID that Irenaeus was premil in eschatology, didn't I? You've just agreed with my statement.
You didn't read my post!
But he's Coveneant theology in his approach to how the Old Testament fits to the New Testament, how the promises to the Jews are fulfilled in Jesus and realised in the church! These are DIFFERENT THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS to the framework you are trying to FORCE onto Irenaeus that has NO BUSINESS BEING THERE!
IRENEOUS IS PREMIL BUT NOT DISPENSATIONAL!
One question is End Times, one is about the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. These questions can intersect at points but do NOT always correlate.
Maybe you should define Dispensationalism for us, and Premillennism for us. These are 2 totally different concerns. Try reading wikipedia if you get confused!

No one, but no one, taught Dispensationalism before Darby. That's his heresy. Churches only started reading the bible that way AFTER Darby.

Biblewriter · Dec 3, 2011

eclipsenow said:
I SAID that Irenaeus was premil in eschatology, didn't I? You've just agreed with my statement.

You didn't read my post!

But he's Coveneant theology in his approach to how the Old Testament fits to the New Testament, how the promises to the Jews are fulfilled in Jesus and realised in the church! These are DIFFERENT THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS to the framework you are trying to FORCE onto Irenaeus that has NO BUSINESS BEING THERE!

IRENEOUS IS PREMIL BUT NOT DISPENSATIONAL!

One question is End Times, one is about the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. These questions can intersect at points but do NOT always correlate.

Maybe you should define Dispensationalism for us, and Premillennism for us. These are 2 totally different concerns. Try reading wikipedia if you get confused!

No one, but no one, taught Dispensationalism before Darby. That's his heresy. Churches only started reading the bible that way AFTER Darby.

I am well aware of the difference between simple premillennism and Dispensationalism. I do not need wickipedia. I studied the original sources. In this case, if wikipedia says what you claim it says, it is wrong.

Darby indeed systematize Dispensationalism and popularized it. But many of its concepts are very much older that Darby, or even Amil doctrine.

You plainly did not read the quotations I gave in my thread. I am well aware that it is commonly
reported that Irenaeus and his associates taught Covenant Theology. But in my thread I produced conclusive proof that this commonly reported idea is simply not in accordance with the facts.

I gave indisputable proof that Irenaeus taught SOME concepts of Covenant Theology and SOME concepts of Dispensationalism.

You are making the same error here that you make with the scriptures. You rely heavily on what someone else wrote without personally investigating the original sources for yourself.

I am not even going to answer anything more you say about Irenaeus until you read the quotations I gave.

trumpeter · Dec 3, 2011

eclipsenow said:
No one, but no one, taught Dispensationalism before Darby. That's his heresy. Churches only started reading the bible that way AFTER Darby.

The Real History of Dispensationalism

Early Developments

In order to gain an accurate picture of dispensationalism, it is necessary to turn back the hands of time to A. D. 110-165, during the life of Justin Martyr. In his book Dialogue with Trypho, he recognizes "several differing economies in the Old Testament."

It is clear that for Martyr, there are distinct ages or eras; one prior to circumcision and the law, then one after God's revelation to Abraham in which circumcision became necessary, then after the law was given to and through Moses, in which it was found necessary to keep the Sabbath. One can clearly see that Martyr held to a form of dispensationalism since he recognized different economies within God's progressive revelation.

The next individual to maintain and further clarify the dispensations that God has used was Irenaeus (A. D. 130-200). Irenaeus "refers in his writings to four principal covenants given to the human race, particularly drawing a distinction between three covenants of the Old Testament and the gospel. This distinction is typical of dispensationalism."

We then move onto Clement of Alexandria (A. D. 150-220) who "identified four dispensations: Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, and Mosaic."

Augustine (A. D. 354-530) comes along next and refers to changes from one economy in God's plan to another as "the changes of successive epochs."

While Ryrie is quick to point out (and on this Enns agrees) that it would not be correct in referring to these men as Dispensationalists as we think of Dispensationalism today, it is obviously clear that they "enunciated principles which later developed into dispensationalism, and it may be rightly said that they held to primitive or early dispensational concepts."

Developments in the Middle Ages

Having stated all of this, our real starting point in the modern era begins with Pierre Poiret (1646-1719). Pierre was a French mystic and philosopher who wrote a six-volume systematic theology which was titled L'O Economie Divine. This is purely a modified Calvinistic approach and a premillenial work in which he lists a seven-fold dispensational scheme, which included Infancy, Childhood, Adolescence, Youth, Manhood, Old Age, Renovation of All Things. Each of these specific economies or dispensations referred to a specific biblical period, all of which culminated in a literal Millennium.

John Edwards (1637-1716) followed Poiret, publishing two volumes called A Compleat History or Survey of All the Dispensations. In this work, he attempted to show how God had dealt with the creation until the end of the world. His outline for dispensationalism was far more involved than Poiret's.

We then move onto Isaac Watts (1674-1748), who was really the precursor to Scofield's system of dispensationalism. Watts' identification of dispensationalism was more defined. His outline closely resembles Scofield's, with the exception of the Millennial Kingdom. Watts included six separate dispensations, which are as follows:

1. Innocency
2.Adamical Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace
3. Noahical Dispensation
4. Abrahamical Dispensation
5. Mosaical Dispensation
6. Christian Dispensation

eclipsenow · Dec 3, 2011

Biblewriter said:
I am not even going to answer anything more you say about Irenaeus until you read the quotations I gave.

(As I said in the 'asking futurists' thread...) the problem here is one of over-quoting and you seem to be trying to win the point through sheer-info dumping. I've been reading for half an hour, and haven't hit a conclusive bit of evidence yet.

EG: Justin Martyr is clearly COVENANT. The way you quote him out of context is cringe worthy!

You seem to get over excited by some interesting language usage, but as always forget to read the quotes IN CONTEXT.

EG: You quote a long bit...

“And by Isaiah He speaks thus concerning another Israel: ‘In that day shall there be a third Israel among the Assyrians and the Egyptians, blessed in the land which the Lord of Sabaoth hath blessed, saying, blessed shall my people in Egypt and in Assyria be, and Israel mine inheritance. Since then God blesses this people, and calls them Israel, and declares them to be His inheritance, how is it that you repent not of the deception you practise on yourselves, as if you alone were the Israel, and of execrating the people whom God has blessed? For when He speaks to Jerusalem and its environs, He thus added: ‘And I will beget men upon you, even my people Israel; and they shall inherit you, and you shall be a possession for them; and you shall be no longer bereaved of them.’ ” (Dialogue withTrypho, chapter CXXIII)

Then you say:

In this statement Justin Martyr seems to be saying that the scriptural term Israel includes the church. This is also a concept of Covenant Theology and is incompatible with Dispensationalism. But he also clearly says that in that future day Israel will be blessed along with the church. This is an element of Dispensationalism, and is wholly incompatible with Covenant Theology.

Um, excuse me, but where does Justin Martyr say Israel will be blessed ALONG WITH the church? Hmmm? That's just dishonest! Let us remember that this is a fictional conversation between himself and an imaginary Jewish character, Trypho. See the section I made bold? That's Justin accusing Trypho the Jew of selectively preferring themselves as Israel. So let's go back and see what 'Trypho the Jew' asks Justin immediately following the bit you quoted out of context.

For when He speaks to Jerusalem and its environs, He thus added: 'And I will beget men upon you, even my people Israel; and they shall inherit you, and you shall be a possession for them; and you shall be no longer bereaved of them.'" "What, then?" says Trypho; "are you Israel? and speaks He such things of you?"
"If, indeed," I replied to him, "we had not entered into a lengthy discussion on these topics, I might have doubted whether you ask this question in ignorance; but since we have brought the matter to a conclusion by demonstration and with your assent, I do not believe that you are ignorant of what I have just said, or desire again mere contention, but that you are urging me to exhibit the same proof to these men." And in compliance with the assent expressed in his eyes, I continued: "Again in Isaiah, if you have ears to hear it, God, speaking of Christ in parable, calls Him Jacob and Israel. He speaks thus: 'Jacob is my servant, I will uphold Him; Israel is mine elect, I will put my Spirit upon Him, and He shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry, neither shall any one hear His voice in the street: a bruised reed He shall not break, and smoking flax He shall not quench; but He shall bring forth judgment to truth: He shall shine, and shall not be broken till He have set judgment on the earth. And in His name shall the Gentiles trust.' As therefore from the one man Jacob, who was surnamed Israel, all your nation has been called Jacob and Israel; so we from Christ, who begat us unto God, like Jacob, and Israel, and Judah, and Joseph, and David, are called and are the true sons of God, and keep the commandments of Christ."

CHAPTER CXXIV -- CHRISTIANS ARE THE SONS OF GOD.
Oh yeah, I left the next chapter heading on just in case there was any doubt.

You really shouldn't use info dumping to hide the fact that you've quoted someone out of context. All Israel's inheritance and promises are clearly being inherited by Christians. That's Covenant, and that's Justin.

To summarise Justin Matyr's Dialogue with Trypho I'll just quote from the wiki on the topic.

In the Dialogue with Trypho, Christian theologian Justin Martyr undertakes to show that Christianity is the new law for all men, and to prove from Scripture that Jesus is the Christ via a fictitious intellectual conversation between Justin and Trypho, a Jew. The concluding section propounds to demonstrate that the Christians are the true people of God.
Dialogue with Trypho - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's covenant all the way.

To be honest with you, I'm a bit tired of you demanding that I sit and read a long and rambling and irrelevant and now, quite dishonest thread to try and prove your point for you. You're the one with the burden of proof, so please don't make that burden so burdensome on the rest of us! Just because YOU can't find a single killer quote doesn't mean you get to info dump all over the rest of us.

Darby invented Dispensationalism in 1830, and no one read the bible that way prior to it.

I'm asking futurists why they read Revelation that way?

Newbie

Newbie

I'm Here - For Now

Senior Member

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Senior Member

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Senior Member

Senior Member

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Senior Member

Senior Member

Newbie

I'm Here - For Now

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Senior Member

Member

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Similar threads