The Fatal Flaw in Dispensationalism

yeshuaslavejeff said:

All Scripture in Total Complete Harmony, Each and Every Part, has nothing to do with a doctrine like that. (man made or demon inspired). Most all the world is tricked though, including Christians too often.

Click to expand...

I note that you offer no scriptural basis for your argument.

Bible Highlighter said:

Also, the gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world until the end.

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." (Matthew 24:14).

So it is not another gospel.

Click to expand...

if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Click to expand...

The "end" has already arrived. Jesus in Matt. 24 was talking about the end of Jerusalem, not the end of the world.

Al Touthentop said:

I note that you offer no scriptural basis for your argument.

Click to expand...

Read it again.

Al Touthentop said:

He says his coming 'on the clouds, in great glory' will be witnessed by the people of that generation.

Click to expand...

Thus, your previous post is false - contradicting the Scripture you quote here.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Read it again.

Click to expand...

Yup, still no scriptures to support your point of view.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Thus, your previous post is false - contradicting the Scripture you quote here.

Click to expand...

Which previous post are you referring to?

Al Touthentop said:

Yup, still no scriptures to support your point of view.

Click to expand...

Read it again.

Al Touthentop said:

Jesus came in wrath in AD 70 to destroy Jerusalem.

Click to expand...

Ahhh yes.

And His reward was with Him ----- "NOT".

Al Touthentop said:

In this case, it's just a convenient exercise to obfuscate and ignore the meaning of the original context. It's terrible exegesis.

Click to expand...

Actually it's good exegesis - using one place where a certain word is used to shed light on another.

Al Touthentop said:

Well then, the people reading it 2000 years ago were not the subjects of the letter then.

Click to expand...

Of course they were just as we are as well.

Your logic is flawed. According to your thinking the book of Acts was written by Luke for a person named Theophilus and therefore it was not also for us. According to your way of thinking the epistles to the various churches written by Paul are not for us but only for them. According to your way of thinking we are simply eaves dropping on Paul's letters to Timothy Titus and have no right to take what He says as being also construction to us.

In fact - most of Jesus recorded words or the O.T. words were not intended for us but only for those to whom they were directly written.

This "convenient exercise to obfuscate and ignore" the obvious is rather silly and transparent. Not only that it ends up in some very bad theology if consistent.

Al Touthentop said:

And if that's what you really think, then you must think that God was playing some sort of grand joke rather than warning them of actual events. What a mean God it would be indeed to get people worked up about things that had no bearing on them.

Click to expand...

"For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you." 1 Corinthians 11:19

The way God wrote the scriptures is a bit of a test for us in His church as the scriptures themselves testify. Whether His test is "mean" of Him or some kind of "grand joke" is but one man's opinion. I for one will go ahead and play His "game" and I will continue to do it with good exegesis as far as I can.

No person's salvation depends on their eschatology of course. But it is still good that we try to get it all right. This is especially true regarding our treatment of the book of Revelation since there are promised rewards for those who work at it.

I probably won't argue this with you much more here.

I have no dog in the fight really. I have changed many things about my own eschatology over the years and will no doubt do so again should the Lord tarry.

I just don't like anyone misrepresenting the beliefs of others as we so often see, not only here but particularly in some of the soteriology threads.

You have provided nothing but an unsupported assertion. Just saying that 'all the scriptures' support your view rather than mine, is intellectually lazy.

David Kent said:

Oh yes. A typical dispy answer. You should ask yourself "The end of what?" The period that Daniel 9 covers is to the coming of the Messiah, the things which were determined to happen during His ministry, His being cut off, and the results of the rejection and crucfying him by the Jews. The comsumation, as I see it was the complete end of the Jewish System of worship and government. The Jews gave away their rights to government when Herod Archelaus was so bad that the Jews begged Caesar to take direct rule. For a while Caesar refused but eventually gave was and deposed Archrlaus and and exiled him to Vienne, a chief city of the Gauls. Josephus. I don't know if thet was Vienna in Austria, or Vienne in France.

The Jews confirmed that when they said to Pilate "We have no king but Caesar".

The Landowner took away the vineyard and gave it to others, that is the body of Christian believers, which is now The Termple of the Living God.

Click to expand...

Jesus talks about the temple's utter destruction whereby every stone will be thrown down (Matthew 24:1-2).

The disciples replied,

"....Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"
(Matthew 24:3).

Jesus then lays out the end times for them that will involve the sign of His coming, and of the END OF THE WORLD. This is the "Consummation" (i.e. End) mentioned in Daniel 9.
How so? Because Jesus points to the Abomination of Desolations from Daniel 9!!!

Where exactly does the "End of the World" happen in Christ's Olivet Discourse for you?
Most likely it simply does not happen.

Also, we can see parallels between the Olivet Discourse and Revelation (of which we know Revelation is still yet future - unless of course you know of an event in history that compares to it - which would be pretty silly).

In the Future:

The Beast Takes Jerusalem & The Temple Sacrifices Are Stopped:
(And the Gentile Nations Will Trod Down Upon the City for 42 Months):


See!!! Revelation is talking about the same thing that Daniel is talking about.

We see it again. Watch this:

"and unto the end of the war desolations [i.e. plural desolations] are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:" (Daniel 9:26).

One Desolation is the temple sacrifice shall cease.


In Revelation (Which is clearly a description of the End) we see another desolation that takes place.


See how it all lines up?

Daniel 9 talks about "desolations" (plural desolations), and we see that Mystery Babylon or the harlot is brought desolate by the beast's kingdom. Clearly an honest reading of Revelation will lead the reader to conclude that those things within Revelation have clearly not happened yet. It describes some really unforgettable things that no human in history will ever forget.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Read it again.

Click to expand...

What does this statement mean ?

In fact - most of Jesus recorded words or the O.T. words were not intended for us but only for those to whom they were directly written.

Click to expand...

Well, that is correct actually. Their recording is for our benefit but the words were not directed at us. If they were, then we can arbitrarily interpret OT prophecy as still unfulfilled since we haven't "yet" seen the events take place. We're still waiting for the Assyrians to carry off Israel into bondage. But first, the nation has to be re-established.....

This "convenient exercise to obfuscate and ignore" the obvious is rather silly and transparent. Not only that it ends up in some very bad theology if consistent.

Click to expand...

Well that's exactly what I was saying and you're trying to turn it back on me. If the events described in Revelation didn't occur when it was said they would occur, and we reject the claim by Jesus himself that they were going to occur quickly, then we're ignoring the obvious. We have to assume then that none of it has taken place and that God was playing a sick joke on the people to whom that letter was addressed. The letter was addressed, with urgency, to people living 2000 years ago. To say that it wasn't addressed directly to us is not to say we can't benefit from what's written or that it wasn't intended for us to benefit from them. I didn't say that at all. But improper exegesis will only result in confusion. God is not an author of bad grammar or of confusion (that's actually redundant). The words mean what they say.

Peter was not trying to clear things up for readers of Revelation, he was talking to people who were impatient and wondered when God would answer their prayers.

Al Touthentop said:

I note that you offer no scriptural basis for your argument.

Click to expand...

Ahh...you're trolling.

I thought (and KNOW, as WRITTEN) that Peter was obeying completely and moved by/ directed totally by/ the INSPIRATION of YAHUWEH in the writing of YAHUWEH'S WORD. (as YAHUWEH SAYS) (not by mere human will nor means nor interpretation) ....

yeshuaslavejeff said:

I thought (and KNOW, as WRITTEN) that Peter was obeying completely and moved by/ directed totally by/ the INSPIRATION of YAHUWEH in the writing of YAHUWEH'S WORD. (as YAHUWEH SAYS) (not by mere human will nor means nor interpretation) ....

Click to expand...

But what Peter didn't say is, "Now take what I've said and try and apply it to every other passage in the scriptures which define time." The Holy Spirit guided him to call his readers to patience when waiting for prayer to be answered, not some new way to unlock the mystery of the Bible's time passages.

Thus instead of 70 weeks in Daniel 9 being 490 years, it's really 7 x 1000 x 70 or 490,000 years before the prophecy was to be fulfilled. Or less than a day because there's no way to know if in this case it was a thousand years = 1 day or 1 day = a thousand years were we to make such absurd assumptions about Peter's words.

I don't know at all the best response to that that won't break the rules of etiquette.

Maybe in a little while, if Yahuweh Permits....

Al Touthentop said:

Well that's exactly what I was saying and you're trying to turn it back on me.

Click to expand...

Exactly so.

Al Touthentop said:

If the events described in Revelation didn't occur when it was said they would occur, and we reject the claim by Jesus himself that they were going to occur quickly, then we're ignoring the obvious. We have to assume then that none of it has taken place

Click to expand...

Come on now. You know full well how God uses language where the meaning doesn't become obvious to all until the event is done. Jesus' first coming was so and His second coming is the same kind of presentation by God.

I have shown where that Greek word does not necessarily mean real real soon like 40 years or so when He uses it. The same person Who said it in the gospel also said it in the Revelation. He changes not.

Al Touthentop said:

God was playing a sick joke on the people to whom that letter was addressed. The letter was addressed, with urgency, to people living 2000 years ago.

Click to expand...

Enough with your "sick joke" comments. It's no more of a sick joke than His saying that we are in the "last days" or that Adam would crush the head of the serpent and that the serpent would bruise the heel of Adam. It's just the way God has chosen to make us work at our theology a bit.

Take it all up with Him. Frankly your sick joke and games charges against the way God has chosen to do things with the writing of the scriptures is wearing really thin at least to me.

Al Touthentop said:

Peter was not trying to clear things up for readers of Revelation, he was talking to people who were impatient and wondered when God would answer their prayers.

Click to expand...

No one said that He was.

Al Touthentop said:

Thus instead of 70 weeks in Daniel 9 being 490 years, it's really 7 x 1000 x 70 or 490,000 years before the prophecy was to be fulfilled. Or less than a day because there's no way to know if in this case it was a thousand years = 1 day or 1 day = a thousand years were we to make such absurd assumptions about Peter's words.

Click to expand...

No one is claiming that the Peter quote proves anything about an exact time. To go there is just plain disingenuous of you.

Now you're just starting to play games. I for one am not interested if you choose to do this kind of thing.

Peter's statement about how God views short short times simply sheds light on how He could be using that kind of language elsewhere. No one says any more about it than that.

But when we look at Revelation 22 we see with further clarity how He views "quickly".

You're just digging in on this now for no reason. If you would simply make your case without this kind of gamesmanship I'd likely continue with you. But you seem to be signalling that you won't do that.

Your choice of course. No skin off my nose.

His student said:

Come on now. You know full well how God uses language where the meaning doesn't become obvious to all until the event is done.

Click to expand...

And as seen in this site and thread, the meaning is not even known today by many. (it is obvious, but only to a few, correctly) Yes.

His student said:

I have shown where that Greek word does not necessarily mean real real soon like 40 years or so when He uses it. The same person Who said it in the gospel also said it in the Revelation. He changes not.

Click to expand...

You actually haven't done that. There is no example you've provided where the word ταχυ can be translated "a very long time from now."

You have said that because you believe the events haven't occurred yet, that therefore the word doesn't mean quickly. However, that is circular logic. The word's meaning is intact as written.