Dispensational Premillennialism????

[Brian Mcnamee]

There is no third temple. The temple in Ezekiel is a vision! It is not real. Go back and re-read the book of Ezekiel to verify what I just said. Then realize that every lesson you ever heard/read about Ezekiel's third temple was wrong. I know this is difficult, Brian, folks, I went through the same experience. It's challenging to watch your pastors, teachers, leaders look confused or get angry at you when you ask honest and sincere questions about plainly read scripture that contradicts what the teach, what they themselves were taught errantly.

Do it anyway.

God's word as written, plainly read, properly exegeted is the authority, not what men make it say to fit their eschatology.

The temple in Ezekiel is a vision, not an actual temple.
The temple in Ezekiel has no roof.
The temple in Ezekiel is huge in size. If built it would extend off the mountain on which Jerusalem sits.

The temple in Ezekiel is huge in size. If built it would extend off the mountain on which Jerusalem sits. If translated into miles the temple grounds of Ezekiel's temple would by 52 miles by 21 miles! Current, modern day Jerusalem measures only 49 square miles. Look it up. Ezekiel's temple grounds cover almost 1100 square miles. It would hang off the mountain upon which Jerusalem sits by miles.

It is a vision. It is not a literal temple; it is figurative, symbolic of something other than a temple of brick and stone.

Go back and re-read the book of Ezekiel and verify what I just posted.

Then adjust your thinking, doctrine, and practice accordingly....

...because the post to which I now reply is wrong. There is no place in the entire Bible where we are told another, third temple will be built. Scripture never says any such thing. This was all covered in post#66 in this op. Before you think to bring up an alternative deal with what has already been posted because whatever anyone posts they're going to have to address the facts of scripture. You cannot describe what a third temple will be like if there is not going to be a third temple. A lot of money is being made selling the message of a third temple, profiteering over something scripture never reports. If you are as critical and discerning with your sources as you are with my posts you'll see what I have posted is correct.

The temple of Ezekiel is a vision; it is not reported to be real. We understand this as the truth scripture itself asserts because the temple in Ezekiel has no roof and it is ginormous, so huge it is bigger the city in which it is built and so huge it would hang off the whole mountain upon which it is built.

Look it up.

We are far apart and Ill be fishing in the dead see in the millennium you can come and tell me that they are imaginary fish then.

 

[Monna]

If these events have already been fulfilled then someone should be able to show it from the Bible and or ancient history records.

It's not so very long ago that archeologists were saying that the Bible authors made up its stories of "the Hittites." As far as they were concerned there was no evidence that any such group existed, and definitely not as an empire.

They spoke too soon. And a significant number of finds have since shown that the Hittite empire definitely existed. My point though is most people in Christendom before the early 1900s didn't need PROOF that the Hittites existed or not. They just accepted that they did, and that they harrassed the people of Israel, because the Isrealites recorded it in their historical records.

as to prophecies...
Prophecies can have multiple fulfilments. And the very idea of "prophecy" varies from person to person. Jesus told the couple on the way to Emmaus that the OT was riddled with promises of His suffering and resurrection. "Starting from MOSES ... he showed them that the Messiah must suffer, die and be raised again." Please show me explicit prophecies in the OT that the Messiah would die and be raised again. You may take me to places like Isaiah 53 - but that chapter is about God's servant ... it was not about the MESSIAH as conceived of by the Jews of Jesus time. Would you see the story of Jonah being swallowed by the large fish and being vomited up 3 days later on the eastern Mediterranean coast as a prophecy of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection? For goodness sakes, this happened to Jonah because he was running away from God! Jesus wasn't doing that! Yet Jesus himself made the connection and spoke of Jonah's experience as foretelling his own suffering and resurrection ... and thereby also explaining His personal identification precisely with people who were running away from God!

So... there are myriads of levels in the Scriptures ... which is one reason I see it as a truly fantastic library of books. And one whose depths none of us is likely to fathom or understand fully. Rather than try to pin down every individual "prophecy" into some neat future history, and argue (however reasonably) with other people who have different "future histories" I - at present - am trying to focus on my daily walk with the Lord, living a bit of "Kingdom of Heaven" life, on earth as it is in heaven. Sort of practising, if you like. At present that is a big challenge, and one that does definitely require me to study His Word, but prioritising seeking His kingdom, his righteousness, and being ready for His coming - or my being called "home."

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

There is no third temple. The temple in Ezekiel is a vision! It is not real. Go back and re-read the book of Ezekiel to verify what I just said. Then realize that every lesson you ever heard/read about Ezekiel's third temple was wrong. I know this is difficult, Brian, folks, I went through the same experience. It's challenging to watch your pastors, teachers, leaders look confused or get angry at you when you ask honest and sincere questions about plainly read scripture that contradicts what the teach, what they themselves were taught errantly.

Do it anyway.

God's word as written, plainly read, properly exegeted is the authority, not what men make it say to fit their eschatology.

The temple in Ezekiel is a vision, not an actual temple.
The temple in Ezekiel has no roof.
The temple in Ezekiel is huge in size. If built it would extend off the mountain on which Jerusalem sits.

The temple in Ezekiel is huge in size. If built it would extend off the mountain on which Jerusalem sits. If translated into miles the temple grounds of Ezekiel's temple would by 52 miles by 21 miles! Current, modern day Jerusalem measures only 49 square miles. Look it up. Ezekiel's temple grounds cover almost 1100 square miles. It would hang off the mountain upon which Jerusalem sits by miles.

It is a vision. It is not a literal temple; it is figurative, symbolic of something other than a temple of brick and stone.

Go back and re-read the book of Ezekiel and verify what I just posted.

Then adjust your thinking, doctrine, and practice accordingly....

...because the post to which I now reply is wrong. There is no place in the entire Bible where we are told another, third temple will be built. Scripture never says any such thing. This was all covered in post#66 in this op. Before you think to bring up an alternative deal with what has already been posted because whatever anyone posts they're going to have to address the facts of scripture. You cannot describe what a third temple will be like if there is not going to be a third temple. A lot of money is being made selling the message of a third temple, profiteering over something scripture never reports. If you are as critical and discerning with your sources as you are with my posts you'll see what I have posted is correct.

The temple of Ezekiel is a vision; it is not reported to be real. We understand this as the truth scripture itself asserts because the temple in Ezekiel has no roof and it is ginormous, so huge it is bigger the city in which it is built and so huge it would hang off the whole mountain upon which it is built.

Look it up.

IN Ezekiel's vision he backs up the context of it being a literal temple with the key phrase thus sayeth the LORD. Now this is about in that same days that the dead sea is healed and this temple erected the land will be divided by tribe and by lot and by the specific boundaries given in the text and the LORD says He is keeping his oath when doing such a thing and the boundaries include the sea which in the new Jerusalem there is no more sea. Luke 1 the Holy Spirit also says the LORD is keeping his oath to the fathers that Jesus would deliver Israel from their enemies and from the time of their deliverance they would worship and serve the LORD without fear and in holiness all their days. The book of Ezekiel Notes the LORD gathers the nation into the mountains of Israel one day and that group is said to have profaned the LORD's name wherever they were scattered. God promised to remove the reproach from the other nations to those gathered back and give that group a new heart and write his laws on their minds. This group becomes born again. If you look at Zech 14 the same river that Ezekiel mentions comes to life when the Mt of Olives splits in two. The direction of half of the water is eastward which would indeed end up in the dead sea. The new valley is formed and again very specific directions are given. The place of Ezekiels temple may well be Shilo but the topography of the land will certainly be different. The scale of the grounds you site are not agreed upon and the best I can find is a reed is about 11 feet. This would make the temple a mile square and the grounds surrounding it 52 by 21 miles.

 

[DavidPT]

It's not so very long ago that archeologists were saying that the Bible authors made up its stories of "the Hittites." As far as they were concerned there was no evidence that any such group existed, and definitely not as an empire.

They spoke too soon. And a significant number of finds have since shown that the Hittite empire definitely existed. My point though is most people in Christendom before the early 1900s didn't need PROOF that the Hittites existed or not. They just accepted that they did, and that they harrassed the people of Israel, because the Isrealites recorded it in their historical records.

as to prophecies...
Prophecies can have multiple fulfilments. And the very idea of "prophecy" varies from person to person. Jesus told the couple on the way to Emmaus that the OT was riddled with promises of His suffering and resurrection. "Starting from MOSES ... he showed them that the Messiah must suffer, die and be raised again." Please show me explicit prophecies in the OT that the Messiah would die and be raised again. You may take me to places like Isaiah 53 - but that chapter is about God's servant ... it was not about the MESSIAH as conceived of by the Jews of Jesus time. Would you see the story of Jonah being swallowed by the large fish and being vomited up 3 days later on the eastern Mediterranean coast as a prophecy of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection? For goodness sakes, this happened to Jonah because he was running away from God! Jesus wasn't doing that! Yet Jesus himself made the connection and spoke of Jonah's experience as foretelling his own suffering and resurrection ... and thereby also explaining His personal identification precisely with people who were running away from God!

So... there are myriads of levels in the Scriptures ... which is one reason I see it as a truly fantastic library of books. And one whose depths none of us is likely to fathom or understand fully. Rather than try to pin down every individual "prophecy" into some neat future history, and argue (however reasonably) with other people who have different "future histories" I - at present - am trying to focus on my daily walk with the Lord, living a bit of "Kingdom of Heaven" life, on earth as it is in heaven. Sort of practising, if you like. At present that is a big challenge, and one that does definitely require me to study His Word, but prioritising seeking His kingdom, his righteousness, and being ready for His coming - or my being called "home."

You made some very good points here and managed to enlighten me with some of them, yet when it comes to Ezekiel 38 and 39 in particular, I still see no reason for these events to be recorded in the Bible unless they have a fulfillment that can be proved. If no one is able to prove a fulfillment at this point, that means there is another option available. That being, some or all of these things have been not been entirely fulfilled yet. One can't prove something that hasn't even happened yet, but one should be able to prove something that is alleged to have already happened though.

 

[Josheb]

The true temple of God is blemish-free and spotless, built by God Himself with Christ as its foundation, cornerstone, and capstone. There will be no other. Men may build buildings but they will not be temples of God. I have already addressed this in posts 64 and 66.

IN Ezekiel's vision he backs up the context of it being a literal temple with the key phrase thus sayeth the LORD.....

Thus sayeth the Lord: What Ezekiel saw was a vision. It was not real, was not intended to be real, never stated as such, and is not real.

Thus sayeth the Lord. That's what He said. That's what He meant. That's what it is.

There is no third temple asserted, no third temple commanded, no third temple built, and the temple God built with His own hands is that of the church, the body of Christ.

Thus sayeth the Lord.

But men ignore God's word often to device their own devices, schemes and vain imaginations. God never wanted a temple of stone built. He doesn't live in houses built by human hands. The temple was always an offense to God as a creation of disobedient men who defied His law when they built the temple, and He had His own temple in mind from before the world was created.

1 Peter 1:17-21
"If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God."​

Thus sayeth the Lord.

Everything in the OT is a foreshadowing of Christ, Christ alive, Christ crucified, and Christ risen and ascended. The temple is a foreshadowing of Christ. When God mentions a temple He's not talking about a man-made structure of stone. He was always talking about His Son and His resurrected body of royal priestly believers.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17
"Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are."​

Thus sayeth the Lord. That is what God "backed up."

We are the "third temple."

Thus sayether the Lord.

 

[nolidad]

I don't even know what this term fully means but I can make an educated guess and I am fairly certain that I am NOT a Dispensational Premillennialist..... but I could be incorrect?

My belief is that there is hidden potential positive meaning in the scariest of scriptures and therefore I believe that the time from the Rapture, (assuming that there will be a Rapture of some valid sort).... to the fulfillment of Zechariah 14
could be merely hours or days or at most perhaps only three and a half years?

I am late in joining th is conversation and have not read all the replies (I had 4 of our 6 children here for the holidays and took time away form my PC).

First there is a "rapture" ( the snatching away in Thesseslonians or harpagizmo), and it will occur before the 70th week of Daniel or "great tribulation" begins, which is the last 7 years of human history before Jesus physically returns to set up His Millennial Kingdom.

The rapture is just for the church- the saints since Pentecost till the rapture which is also the body of Christ! Sometime after the rapture- Israel will sign a seven year covenant with the "antichrist" which commences the last 7 years. It is a secret coming and is imminent, meaning it can occur anytome between now and the signing of the covenant.

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

The true temple of God is blemish-free and spotless, built by God Himself with Christ as its foundation, cornerstone, and capstone. There will be no other. Men may build buildings but they will not be temples of God. I have already addressed this in posts 64 and 66.

Thus sayeth the Lord: What Ezekiel saw was a vision. It was not real, was not intended to be real, never stated as such, and is not real.

Thus sayeth the Lord. That's what He said. That's what He meant. That's what it is.

There is no third temple asserted, no third temple commanded, no third temple built, and the temple God built with His own hands is that of the church, the body of Christ.

Thus sayeth the Lord.

But men ignore God's word often to device their own devices, schemes and vain imaginations. God never wanted a temple of stone built. He doesn't live in houses built by human hands. The temple was always an offense to God as a creation of disobedient men who defied His law when they built the temple, and He had His own temple in mind from before the world was created.

1 Peter 1:17-21
"If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God."​

Thus sayeth the Lord.

Everything in the OT is a foreshadowing of Christ, Christ alive, Christ crucified, and Christ risen and ascended. The temple is a foreshadowing of Christ. When God mentions a temple He's not talking about a man-made structure of stone. He was always talking about His Son and His resurrected body of royal priestly believers.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17
"Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are."​

Thus sayeth the Lord. That is what God "backed up."

We are the "third temple."

Thus sayether the Lord.

Hi your rendering of Ezekiel's vision to not being literal is not a good interpretation. Daniels had visions and the angel was sent to help him interpret them and in every case the visions was not an allegory but a clear description of what was to come. Dan 7 the kingdom comes when a pompous guy arises and is persecuting for a times times and half a time when the son of man is then given the kingdom that covers the earth and has no end. Dan 2 of the vision 45 Inasmuch as you saw that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold—the great God has made known to the king what will come to pass after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is sure.” In Ezekiel the vision that includes thus sayeth the LORD is so specific that no figurative language is used and the interpretation is straight forward it means what it says. Zech 14 shows the same river flowing the same direction on the day the LORD comes with his saints and is king over all the earth. You can stick to we are in the kingdom age now but any serious study will show that the secret societies Jesuits, Mason's new agers and all who are building the NWO one world government that they are Luciferian and if Satan be bound we would not see this demonic organization coming together. The righteousness that is on the earth when Jesus is king will reflect a rod of iron and justice is established. The plot lines of the greatest story indeed of the OT are all about Jesus who is like Joseph revealed to his brothers when they see Him in that day saving them and that is why they are weeping as they finally recognize that Jesus is LORD and Jesus will give them the oil of gladness for the spirit of sorrow. The plot lines are all about Jesus and they will all be fulfilled literally.

 

[Josheb]

Hi your rendering of Ezekiel's vision to not being literal is not a good interpretation.

So you say but I don't read a single word about what I actually wrote being actually wrong. You've leveled an accusation and not evidenced anything actually incorrect.

The facts in evidence show I've rendered scripture more literally than anything I have received.When scripture says Ezekiel's temple is a vision then I take that literally. When scripture says there's no roof to Ezekiel's temple I take that literally.

You don't.

Daniels had visions and the angel was sent to help him interpret them and in every case the visions was not an allegory but a clear description of what was to come.

You've just contradicted yourself. If it was literal then no interpretation would be necessary and you just went on record explicitly acknowledging the angels were "sent to help him interpret...."

Go back to the op and examine the original six complaints against Dispensational Premillennialism. Notice one of them is, "It asserts a hermeneutic none actually practice." DPism claims to read prophesy literally but what it actually does is read scripture literalistically, not literally. Literal readings need no interpretation. DPists try to get around this malfeasance by claiming "There will be a literal fulfillment of prophesy," as if that addresses the fact they aren't actually reading prophesy literally AND as if everyone in Christian thinks something else. Every single Christian who has ever called on the name of Christ understand prophesy will be fulfilled.

Daniel's vision in chapter 7 specifies a lion with wings. The literal fulfillment of the literal prophesy is not literally a literal lion with literal wings.

And no one thinks that what it was intended to mean or will mean, especially not after the angels tell him about the symbols. You are contradicting yourself!

Now I have also complained about DPists repeatedly changing the subject and repeatdly changing scriptures so they can never be pinned down to discuss a single verse or passage without them running amuck like squirrels with no heads. Ezekiel, Brian, Ezekiel. Not Daniel. Ezekiel. Daniel might well be literal or Hosea or Malachi but that doesn't mean every or any other book is. You've argued a false equivalency fallacy!

And wasted both our times doing so.

The plot lines are all about Jesus and they will all be fulfilled literally.

Correction: What was prophesied in Daniel came to fulfillment in the first century and the book of Revelation is telling the believers of the first century that what was prophesied long ago was literally coming to fruition in their day. Daniel was told to seal the prophesies because the time was not then at hand but John was literally told to literally leave the prophesies unselead because the events were literally coming quickly because the time was literally near.

You do NOT read prophesy literally despite your protest to the contrary. If you did then you would read the "near" literally! and not interpretively.

You are contradicting yourself, not just scripture.

And proving my original complaints about Dispensational Premillennialism correct:

It compromises long-held and well-established core doctrines of the church.
It causes its adherents to live divided and hypocritical lives.
It asserts a hermeneutic none actually practice.
It has repeatedly fostered false prognosticators and continues to do so.
It does not hold those proven to teach falsely accountable.
No other mainstream theology generates such misconduct in frequency or severity.​

These concerns are being demonstrated in this very discussion.


The facts remain:

1) There is no third temple directed anywhere in the Bible; it's existence is entirely a matter of eisegetic inference most of Christianity has rejected since the NT era when Christians learned Christ and his body are the temple of God.

2) The temple in Ezekiel is a vision; it is stated as such and nowhere is it stated it will ever be literal.

3) The temple has no roof.

4) The temple grounds are so enormous they would encompass the entire city of Jerusalem and literally hang off the mountain at least a quarter of a mile in any single direction.

5) God does not live in temples made by human hands.

6) Altars made of hewn stone are an abomination, a defiant act of disobedience to God.


Now, if you wish to protest and refute what I've said then do so but don't switch topics and don't switch passages and don't make accusations without evidence to prove the case. In the absence of any such refutation I will expact any and all to bow to the facts of scripture. It's not personal, guys, It's just God's word as written, plainly read and soundly exegeted.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

You do NOT read prophesy literally despite your protest to the contrary. If you did then you would read the "near" literally! and not interpretively.

To your point.
From etymology dictionary
literally (adv.)
1530s, "in a literal sense, according to the exact meaning of the word or words used," from literal + -ly (2). Since late 17c. it has been used in metaphors, hyperbole, etc., to indicate what follows must be taken in the strongest admissible sense. But this is irreconcilable with the word's etymological sense and has led to the much-lamented modern misuse of it.

We have come to such a pass with this emphasizer that where the truth would require us to insert with a strong expression 'not literally, of course, but in a manner of speaking', we do not hesitate to insert the very word we ought to be at pains to repudiate; ... such false coin makes honest traffic in words impossible. [Fowler, 1924]

 

[Josheb]

To your point.
From etymology dictionary
literally (adv.)
1530s, "in a literal sense, according to the exact meaning of the word or words used," from literal + -ly (2). Since late 17c. it has been used in metaphors, hyperbole, etc., to indicate what follows must be taken in the strongest admissible sense. But this is irreconcilable with the word's etymological sense and has led to the much-lamented modern misuse of it.

We have come to such a pass with this emphasizer that where the truth would require us to insert with a strong expression 'not literally, of course, but in a manner of speaking', we do not hesitate to insert the very word we ought to be at pains to repudiate; ... such false coin makes honest traffic in words impossible. [Fowler, 1924]

Thx. Appreciate the support.

There are reasons the rules of exegesis exist. They have been around for a long time and well-established. When used they lead to sound thinking, sound doctrine, and sound practice. It's easy to grasp and apply the basics:

1) Identify the writer and his audience.
2) Identify local and global contexts.
3) Read as written unless something in the surrounding text itself provides reason to do otherwise.
4) The OT informs the NT; the NT interprets the OT.
5) Understand the text as the original readers would have understood it.
6) Use scripture first to interpret scripture.

In the case of eschatology note the temporal markers and in the case of soteriology don't take that which is written by believers to believers about believers and apply it to non-believers.

It's not rocket science.


"Near" means near," and "this generation" in the near demonstrative conjugation means the generation of the audience to whom those words were spoken. DPism does NOT read prophesy literally. Not even close, and the Dispies here have unabashedly demonstrated the practice and thereby proven my original point(s) correct.

 

[DennisTate]

Thx. Appreciate the support.

There are reasons the rules of exegesis exist. They have been around for a long time and well-established. When used they lead to sound thinking, sound doctrine, and sound practice. It's easy to grasp and apply the basics:

1) Identify the writer and his audience.
2) Identify local and global contexts.
3) Read as written unless something in the surrounding text itself provides reason to do otherwise.
4) The OT informs the NT; the NT interprets the OT.
5) Understand the text as the original readers would have understood it.
6) Use scripture first to interpret scripture.

In the case of eschatology note the temporal markers and in the case of soteriology don't take that which is written by believers to believers about believers and apply it to non-believers.

It's not rocket science.


"Near" means near," and "this generation" in the near demonstrative conjugation means the generation of the audience to whom those words were spoken. DPism does NOT read prophesy literally. Not even close, and the Dispies here have unabashedly demonstrated the practice and thereby proven my original point(s) correct.

One point that I heard recently is that many of us attempt to put Greek linear thinking on timing onto the Book of Revelation for example whereas Hebrew thought is far more so cyclical...... as the Book of Ecclesiastes explains rather well.

 

[nolidad]

One point that I heard recently is that many of us attempt to put Greek linear thinking on timing onto the Book of Revelation for example whereas Hebrew thought is far more so cyclical...... as the Book of Ecclesiastes explains rather well.

And the point you are trying to make?

The seals, bowls and trumpets are all different judgments and the book shows that the seals introduce the bowls and the bowls introduce the trumpets. I think God made it clear that this book was written linearly!

 

[Josheb]

One point that I heard recently is that many of us attempt to put Greek linear thinking on timing onto the Book of Revelation for example whereas Hebrew thought is far more so cyclical...... as the Book of Ecclesiastes explains rather well.

Sorta correct. The Jewish paradigm is cyclical relevant to the Jubiliee cycle. It is not cyclical in the sense of reincarnation of the "Mother Earth" or harvest religions. The Hebrew calendar is lunar. The jewish festivals and rituals are tied to the phases of the moon. However, the Jews did not worship the earth or the harvest or create gods affiliated with those concerns like all the surrounding pagan cultures did.

For the Jew, and the Christian, there is a beginning and an end. The "cycles" end at the Great White Throne.

 

[DennisTate]

And the point you are trying to make?

The seals, bowls and trumpets are all different judgments and the book shows that the seals introduce the bowls and the bowls introduce the trumpets. I think God made it clear that this book was written linearly!

My point is that looking at Revelation in a manner that is very negative and super scary and allows no opportunity for Messiah to intervene and give Awakening to the church that is beyond what happened in Acts 2 would be taking Revelation in an incorrect manner.

 

[nolidad]

My point is that looking at Revelation in a manner that is very negative and super scary and allows no opportunity for Messiah to intervene and give Awakening to the church that is beyond what happened in Acts 2 would be taking Revelation in an incorrect manner.

Says who?

Not the Word of God that is definite. Revelation is a book of God judging the world for rejecting HIm and giving Satans son his chance to be the false messiah! To say otherwise is to say that the book writes one thing but means something far different than what is written. Then you must decide whose allegorical interpretation is actually the correct one.

I hope you realize there are dozens of re-interpretations of what Revelation says out there.

 

[DennisTate]

Says who?

Not the Word of God that is definite. Revelation is a book of God judging the world for rejecting HIm and giving Satans son his chance to be the false messiah! To say otherwise is to say that the book writes one thing but means something far different than what is written. Then you must decide whose allegorical interpretation is actually the correct one.

I hope you realize there are dozens of re-interpretations of what Revelation says out there.

This discussion may give you a better idea of what I mean than any other........

My belief is that Messiah Yeshua - Jesus is so off the scale intelligent and powerful that He actually can accomodate entirely new time lines.......... based on the fervent prayers of His saints...... or on the LACK THEREOF of those possible prayers......... or acts of genuine faith and sincere attempts to reach out to the lost???!!!

Could the prophet Elijah have altered history if he had NOT........

 

[DennisTate]

Says who?

Not the Word of God that is definite. Revelation is a book of God judging the world for rejecting HIm and giving Satans son his chance to be the false messiah! To say otherwise is to say that the book writes one thing but means something far different than what is written. Then you must decide whose allegorical interpretation is actually the correct one.

I hope you realize there are dozens of re-interpretations of what Revelation says out there.

Here is a metaphor for you.... (I think that that is the correct word for the idea that I have in mind)............. Could it be that we professional and amateur Christian Theologians TEND TO NAIL DOWN THE WORD - LOGOS with our understandings on scriptures...............???????????

Could it be that MESSIAH YESHUA JESUS HAS FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR FAR MORE LATITUDE ON HOW the Book of Revelation, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the minor prophets ork out than we could possibly imagine?????????

One example..... Could Dr. Lance Wallnau, Mark Taylor and other actually be onto something valid in thinking that maybe...... just maybe.... PRESIDENT TRUMP FITS INTO Isaiah 45 ..... at least to some degree??????


President Donald Trump = modern Cyrus prophecy?