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

The word of Shiloh came to this thread saying, I guess that at least 18 centuries of expositors were unable to read, according you your explicit claim. After all, the idea that there was a divine plan remaining for physical Israel was unknown until about 1830. As I noted just above, 18 centuries of well-schooled expositors (Shall we mention a few? Augustine, Jerome, Calvin, Luther, Tyndale, etc.) read the scriptures and found no such contextual problem. They all saw the church as the continuation of true Judaism, just as the apostles did. Of course, the apostles made inspired commentary on those OT promises a matter of Holy Writ. And their comments clearly define that the church is the royal priesthood (Exod 19:16, 1 Pet 2:5, Rev 1:5), not the Jews. They declare that all the sacrifices are over, since Jesus died and became the high priest according to Melchizedek (Matt 27:51, Heb 7). The land promise is not to Jews, but to

Shiloh

Let

Actually it is the anti-Semitic lie of Replacement Theology that Biblestudent espouses that I call nonsense. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is this a fair characterization of this theology? I don't know much about it, other than to assume that it teaches that the church has become the people of God, and are the true spiritual Israel. Maybe there is more to it than that. I guess what I am asking is, does it mean that if someone holds to this theology they are necessarily anti-semitic? I though anti-semitism was having a bias against the Jewish people (against semitic people) for no other reason than thier semitic origins? Just because someone holds that God has "replaced Israel with the church" would not make them anti-semitic, unless they held to that position just because they hated Jewish people. If they have biblical reasons, they are not anti-semitic. We may disagree with them on biblical terms, but calling someone anti-semitic carries alot of conotations, and can blur the argument. If the theology has other things in it that make it anti-semitic, what are they? I think we need to guard against using an emotionally charged term to bias people against our opponents argument? That is a fallacious way of arguing called "playing to the gallery" (also I thing using the term nonsense is not logically helpful either). It is meant to inflate emotions, not talk about the issue. Like I said, I am not familiar with this theology in detail, so I am just asking. What makes it anti-semitic? If there is truly an anti-semitic element, I would like to understand it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Eric, That is a very good question. If you have the time, scan back a ways, and you will see an exchange between Shiloh and me about this. In short, Shiloh accuses me of anti-Semitism, utterly without foundation. Further, he calls my view "Replacement Theology." It is actually "Continuation Theology" in that it shows that the church is a continuation of the true Israel of God (Gal 6:16). In fact, Shiloh's pet view is the true "Replacement Theology" in that it replaces the Israel of God with the Israel after the flesh. All that said, Dispensationalism (Shiloh's view) believes that God has reserved a special future for the Jews called the "Great Tribulation." During that time, a huge number of Jews (around half of them) are killed during horrible plagues. In my view, all believers are saved, and the wicked are all killed quickly by the brightness of His coming. There is no distinction based on genetic heritage. I ask you - Which view is anti-Semitic? Ted

Pilgrim, It is most pleasant to hear a reassuring voice such as yours. It tells me that my work is not in vain. At the same time it is disheartening to hear the rants of Shiloh who is unwilling to do the careful exegesis required of a true Bible student. When he substitutes

After nearly two weeks, Shiloh has not seen fit to explain to us which of his contradictory views should be accepted. Unless he is away on vacation, I must suppose that this means that he is either unable or unwilling to do so. It may be that he is unwilling, since to do so would require that he do the hard biblical study to pick one position and show how the other is incorrect. Of course, that would be admitting that one of his positions is incorrect, and that is hard for anyone to do. On the other hand, it is possible that he is unable. That is, he is unable to recognize the obvious fact that he has adopted an internally inconsistent hermeneutic. This is called a cognitive disconnect, and until it is remedied, Shiloh will be unable to properly exegete scripture. For the benefit of all the onlookers, I am a professor of biblical exegesis. My next course, Practical Hermeneutics, is a lab course. The final exam will be for the student to exegete the olive tree. Four weeks will be allowed, and the paper will be graded on use of scripture and clarity of thought and presentation. Agreement with the professor will not be a grading point. I expect that my students will do a better job than Shiloh has done. ** Now, since Shiloh has abandoned the field, I will conclude the exegesis of the olive tree. I will begin with a brief summary of the material so far explored. Obviously, if someone else chooses to make a reasoned dissent, more discussion may follow. Concluded so far: 1. The root of the olive tree is Abraham. (If we want to get technical, it could be Jacob, since he was the first one with the name

This is a truly uplifting post. Have you shared your discoveries with Samuele Bacchiocchi? (Probably the foremost Protestant scholar of Shabbat) sbacchiocchi@biblicalperspectives.com

Shiloh, It

JesusIsGod, There are scurrilous comments about me, but there has been no comment whatever about the merits of what I said about "until" and "hardness in Israel." Until those are addressed, there has been no substantive response. It is sad to see that some people find it necessary to demean someone who doesn't agree with them as one discussant does repeatedly. I have kept my comments very close to what has been said. When I said that the writer ignored something, that is exactly what he did. He denied it, but that doesn't change the facts. In no place did I call him "incompetent" or "blasphemous" as he did me. When one substitutes inflammatory comments for serious discussion of the merits of a point, it raises serious questions about the author of those comments. Let us return to Romans 11. Ted

I'm amazed. I go away for several days, and when I come back, no one has even offered a single comment on the substance of my discussion of verse 25. There were two key areas where I expected at least some comments. 1. The "partial hardening in Israel." 2. "Until the fulness of Gentiles has come in." Both of these ought to have some comments from Dispensationalists. Yet I have seen none. I will wait a bit for comments on those before proceeding. Ted