BibleStudent

Well stated. And this shows us part of how to see the churches. As one other noted, all the characteristics of all seven were present in the church throughout history as well as today. There is no biblical information that should suggest that we take the churches as stages of church history, even though there is a superficial resemblance. On the other hand, each of the messages is formal covenant format: Preamble, Prolog, Stipulations, Blessings and Cursings, Witnesses. Taken together, the messages are a single message to the church as a whole. It is a formal description of the covenant. Ted

That's a nice collection of texts, but where does any one of them say anything about the SECULAR NATION OF "ISRAEL?" For example, 1 Thes 5:3 speaks not of Israel being in peace and safety, but rather of the wicked saying it. The verse before identifies this as the Day of the Lord, which will come on the WICKED "like a thief in the night." Every scriptural use of this metaphor speaks of the destruction that GOD will mete out on the wicked for their rebellion against Him. You get your ideas from reading a flat Bible. You seem to think that because all scripture is equally inspired and therefore equally true, that it has equal truth. That is simply wrong. Later revelations repeatedly add to what was known before. For example, Paul declares in Eph 3:1-6 that it simply was not known in times past (v. 5) that the Gentiles would be made equally part of "the body" (i.e. "Israel," check your ancient references regarding that term) and "fellow partakers of the promise in Jesus." Applied to the land to which you seem to think ethnic Jews are to return, notice that in Psalm 37 David sees it as the entire world, confirmed by Jesus in Matt 5:5. Then Paul in Romans 4:13 makes it explicit, using kosmos that the land promise to Abraham (Gen 15:18-21) was that he would be heir of the entire world, not some sliver of land on the eastern Mediterranean. I ask again. Where does the Bible talk about the SECULAR NATION OF ISRAEL? Ted

And where, pray tell, does SCRIPTURE say that the secular nation of Israel is to be invaded when its populace is "in peace and safety?"

Caroline, Prophecy by its very nature does contain information about the future. But while classical prophecy (eg. Daniel 2 & Jeremiah 25) are straightforward and somewhat detailed, apocalyptic is not. The very nature of apocalyptic is that it is symbolic, recapitulative, and devoted to redemption history, not political history. Ted

Likewise, Amen. You are both perceptive and absolutely on target. The problem is that man is not content to let God reveal the truth. They have to discover it for themselves, making themselves the final arbiters of truth. This repeats the error of Genesis 3. We ought to be focusing on the gospel. Prophecy exists to cast another light on the gospel. It's not detailed prewritten history. Ted

Mark, Let

You are most welcome. BTW, can you comment on which way the discussion led you to understand the question? Ted

Pilgrim, You said, This is a fairly typical exposition from a Dispensationalist perspective. It ignores the Old Testament and Hebrew thought patterns. (Remember, John was a Jew of the tribe of Levi.) The section that follows is from chapter 4 of I Want to be Left Behind. It will show how the

Let me add a title to the list. It is one I have found to be without peer. The Christ of the Covenants by O. Palmer Robertson. Published by Presbyterian and Reformed. Ted

Dennis, Amen. Ted

Pilgrim7, Thank you. Your exposition is clear and correct. But count on it, Shiloh won't buy it. He has bought into an approach that won't let the Bible be a single book by a single author. Rather, he has to have an Israelite Bible (the OT), and a church Bible (the NT). Any links between them are declared to be simply "applications." The Bible is a unified book. And, as we watch the progression from older to newer writings, the newer explains and expands the older. Shiloh can't allow this, because it causes "Israel" to acquire a NT title: the church. Why he is married to this view, I can't answer, but I've seen it dozens of times. The marriage is unshakeable. It is impervious to facts. And it draws one's attention away from the Savior. A pity. Ted

I think that we can all see the basis for your approach. You declare that the church and

Shiloh, You are stuck in a horrible rut. You cannot bring yourself to understand two things. First, it does not matter who I have read. My theology is biblical, not anti-Semitic. If you will look at the list, it includes Dispensationalists, Preterists, and Historicists. I used them as a way to see the various opinions. Comparison with scripture was the criterion for determining the credence to lend any particular point. So, like I said, GIVE IT A REST. Second, Paul and Jesus are inspired, and therefore INFALLIBLE interpreters. When they identify the New Covenant as an attribute of the church, they are necessarily identifying the church as

If this were true, then you could cite at least one theologian I have quoted in this discussion. If memory serves, the only theologian I have quoted is the Apostle Paul. So get rid of your own bananas! (EricH: Thank you.) You also declare that you want to show the roots of my theology. But I told you exactly how I came to my theology. And you treated that as if I never said it. So I will reiterate how I came to my position. The Lord impressed me that I should study prophecy. (I was a member of the Church of the Nazarene.) So I bought every book I could lay my hands on, from every source I could find. Most were Dispensational. Some were SDA, since there is also an SDA bookstore in town. I opened a blank notebook and several Bible translations, and started taking notes in parallel columns. When someone said something particularly stupid (e.g.

Shiloh, I know there were many anti-Semitic theologians in the church. That doesn