Israel will be saved

[duolos]

Well your pre-industrial primitive idea is lacking .... it is obvious that the events of the prophet's vision have never taken place historically as you try to assert

The weapons of his day were what he describes and weapons of war are .... weapons of war

So because according to you it hasn't taken place you discard the literal reading of bows and arrows for "weapons of war" well, ok then, let's just reinterpret all of the Bible like that;

Guys, Guys, the prophecies of the book of Judges haven't come true!! Totes gotta be wary of those Moabites!!

 

[Straightshot]

You do a great job of reinterpreting already duo .... it is the hallmark of preterism

By the way your statement above makes little sense

First you must deal with the fact that Ezekiel 38; 39 has never taken place and you cannot prove that it has with accurate historical evidence

.... and like I said, weapons of war .... are weapons of war no matter how the same are described .... so I discard nothing as you say

Nothing has changed

Are you one who would say that the Lord's Word is irrelevant for a post-modern world?

Are you just to sophisticated to believe it?

Here is what He says [Revelation 22:18-19]

.... or maybe you disagree?

 

[duolos]

You do a great job of reinterpreting already duo .... it is the hallmark of preterism

By the way your statement above makes little sense

First you must deal with the fact that Ezekiel 38; 39 has never taken place and you cannot prove that it has with accurate historical evidence

.... and like I said, weapons of war .... are weapons of war no matter how the same are described .... so I discard nothing as you say

The fulfillment of Ezek 38; 39 is beside the point that I am making in regards to your interpretation of the passage, you are discarding a literal reading of it based on a plethora of reasons including your conviction that it hasn't happened. I'm not going to claim for or against a fulfillment, just going to continue to point out that because of your tradition you are just as guilty of discarding a literal reading when it doesn't suit you.

 

[Straightshot]

"The fulfillment of Ezek 38; 39 is beside the point"


Pure hobgoblin .... it is exactly the point

Come back when you have a better story

 

[BABerean2]

Well your pre-industrial primitive idea is lacking .... it is obvious that the events of the prophet's vision have never taken place historically as you try to assert

The weapons of his day were what he describes as weapons of war are .... weapons of war .... no matter what the invention .... do you also question the Lord's intelligence?

Ezekiel's vocabulary just does not meet your requirements .... so you relegate the setting into the past ..... convenient

The same old preteristic view, if it does not fit your preconceived dogma, force fit it into the past, or just make allegorical mush .... out of sight out of mind

This war has never yet taken place, but it is coming [Psalms 83; Ezekiel 38; 39; Joel 2; 3; Micah 5:9-15; Zechariah 12:1-9; 14:1-3; 14:12-13; Revelation 14:14-20; 16:1-16; 19:11-21]

How absurd for the preterist to deny and shove these things under the rug

The Apostle Peter must have been at least a partial preterist, based on your post and scripture.

Joe 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

Joe 2:29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

Joe 2:30 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.

Joe 2:31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.

Joe 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

.................................................................

Act 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Act 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

Act 2:19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

Act 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:

Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Since Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit on that day, I would be very careful about calling Peter names, if I were you.

 

[Interplanner]

Straight,
there is no place where the ordinary language passages of the NT say anything about a war separate from the final judgement day of God. I'm not counting the Revelation because I don't think any doctrine should be based on it, that is not perfectly clear elsewhere.

No one listening to Peter would have thought him to be bipolar or schitzophrenic and flitting back and forth between what was then happening and the distant future. Now, he may have had in mind the soon destruction of Jerusalem, because of Mt 21-24 and because Jesus had been so pointed about that decisive generation. But not the far distant future.

And we have him not just speaking, but saying that Joel 2 was about the events around him. Most of NT eschatology is about the 1st century situation, culminating in the events of 66+, with the legitimate expectation that the world would end right after the DofJ, but also with the allowance that the final day of judgement could be delayed. And as we know, it has.

 

[Danoh]

Straight,
there is no place where the ordinary language passages of the NT say anything about a war separate from the final judgement day of God. I'm not counting the Revelation because I don't think any doctrine should be based on it, that is not perfectly clear elsewhere.

No one listening to Peter would have thought him to be bipolar or schitzophrenic and flitting back and forth between what was then happening and the distant future. Now, he may have had in mind the soon destruction of Jerusalem, because of Mt 21-24 and because Jesus had been so pointed about that decisive generation. But not the far distant future.

And we have him not just speaking, but saying that Joel 2 was about the events around him. Most of NT eschatology is about the 1st century situation, culminating in the events of 66+, with the legitimate expectation that the world would end right after the DofJ, but also with the allowance that the final day of judgement could be delayed. And as we know, it has.

Lol - if that doesn't read like the old "I used to be a schizophrenic, but now WE'RE ok," I don't know what does.

 

[duolos]

Lol - if that doesn't read like the old "I used to be a schizophrenic, but now WE'RE ok," I don't know what does.

The dispensationalist understanding of Peter's Acts 2 sermon certainly does sound schizophrenic, after all it's not unlikely given the position of other Dispys on this board on Matthew's use of Hosea 11 that the same conclusion of Peter's use of Joel would be likely.

 

[Danoh]

The dispensationalist understanding of Peter's Acts 2 sermon certainly does sound schizophrenic, after all it's not unlikely given the position of other Dispys on this board on Matthew's use of Hosea 11 that the same conclusion of Peter's use of Joel would be likely.

Who are you again? Oh, now I remember - another expert who commented derogatorily on the book I asked to consider reading just after asserting that he couldn't be bothered.

Of course, now what's his name will post his incompetent review, "here's what my bias reading into things," lol thanks for ths humor 😁

 

[duolos]

Who are you again? Oh, now I remember - another expert who commented derogatorily on the book I asked to consider reading just after asserting that he couldn't be bothered.

Of course, now what's his name will post his incompetent review, "here's what my bias reading into things," lol thanks for ths humor 😁

If you can't deal with an honest assessment of Stam trying to shoehorn ideas into Scripture then maybe you shouldn't be self-identifying with it so much...

 

[Danoh]

If you can't deal with an honest assessment of Stam trying to shoehorn ideas into Scripture then maybe you shouldn't be self-identifying with it so much...

You spelled "dishonest" wrong, lol

 

[duolos]

You spelled "dishonest" wrong, lol

As much as quibbling about whether I read Stam in an honest or dishonest way would be fun, I'm going to decline your request to do so.

 

[BABerean2]

You spelled "dishonest" wrong, lol

He can spell "One Gospel".

 

[duolos]

He can spell "One Gospel".

One Lord, One Gospel, One Faith, One Baptism, One God, Father over all, above all, through all and in all

 

[parousia70]

you are discarding a literal reading of it based on a plethora of reasons including your conviction that it hasn't happened. I'm not going to claim for or against a fulfillment, just going to continue to point out that because of your tradition you are just as guilty of discarding a literal reading when it doesn't suit you.

Ding Ding Ding Ding!

Straighshot is no literalist.

He spiritualizes and allegorizes scripture to suit his view.

But gives himself a pass when he accuses others of spiritualizing and allegorizing.

There is a word for that.

 

[Straightshot]

You need to replace "Straightshot" with .... a preterist

Then you will have the correct word in place .... and you know this

And there is a word for your behavior P

 

[parousia70]

You have demonstrated to our readers that you are no literalist.

I'm confident they know what to do with that information.

 

[parousia70]

Well your pre-industrial primitive idea is lacking .... it is obvious that the events of the prophet's vision have never taken place historically as you try to assert

There you go again appealing to an authority outside of scripture to prop up your opinion on scriptural matters.

The weapons of his day were what he describes as weapons of war are .... weapons of war ....

Yes, pre industrial weapons of war.

no matter what the invention

The prophet is VERY specific. You choose to throw out the literal specificity of the prophet in favor of ambiguity and metaphor, which you are welcome to do all day if you want to... but it would be refreshing for you to be honest about it.

.... do you also question the Lord's intelligence?

Seems you are the one questioning that... claiming the Lord is incapable of inspiring the prophet to use the correct description of the actual weapons involved.

Ezekiel's vocabulary just does not meet your requirements .... so you relegate the setting into the past ..... convenient

Very Funny.
Ezekiel's vocabulary is explicit. I accept it at face value. I do not need to spiritualize it away as you have demonstrated you do.

The same old preteristic view, if it does not fit your preconceived dogma, force fit it into the past, or just make allegorical mush .... out of sight out of mind

says the guy who claims literal Arrows aren't literal arrows and literal javelins aren't literal javelins, rather they are allegorical mush used by the prophet because God was unable to inspire him to correctly describe the weapons involved.

 

[Straightshot]

Is it time to laugh again P?

I have to tell you that the further you go on with your trivia the more unbelievable you become

A remnant part of the Lord's nation of Israel has more scheduled events coming as we speak .... hard copy biblical events

And no matter how much you dislike and speak against this truth .... you can do nothing about it

 

[parousia70]

Is it time to laugh again P?

I have to tell you that the further you go on with your trivia the more unbelievable you become

A remnant part of the Lord's nation of Israel has more scheduled events coming as we speak .... hard copy biblical events

And no matter how much you dislike and speak against this truth .... you can do nothing about it

You are no literalist.

You allegorize scripture to suit your view whenever a literal rending would undermine your position.

Everyone here can see that now.

You're views have been exposed and found wanting.

You make it too easy.

What else ya got?