OldCoot Posted September 13, 2018 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,192 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 429 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2017 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/12/1957 Share Posted September 13, 2018 1 minute ago, shiloh357 said: Again, none of that has anything to do with RT. RT didnt' exist at the time, and trying to force something on to the text that isn't there is a sloppy and irresponsible approach to the Bible. You just need to let the text interpret itself rather than trying to impose something on to it that isn't there. Oh come on now. I already addressed this. You are repeating a mantra. But once again since you obviously didn't read what I wrote..... Of course replacement theology did not exist as a organized, compartmentalized theology until later. But the seeds of such doctrines are sown well before they are organized and come to full growth. The church was all over the map regarding lousy doctrine before the Ekkelsia got out of the 1st century. The scriptures evidence that all thru the epistles and the 7 letter in Revelation. And you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of. You are imparting your view of what the text is saying as well. We all do that to one degree or another. We have to rely on context. And the context does not suggest what you are. The pattern of context begins with the the letter to the Ephesus before this letter to Smyrna. The HS tends to follow similar patterns in scripture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 13, 2018 Share Posted September 13, 2018 Just now, OldCoot said: And you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of. You are imparting your view of what the text is saying as well. No, I am simply going off of what the text says. YOU are the one trying to insert something into the text that isn't there. You want it to be about RT, but it is not. You are going to have get over your pride and just face the facts, that the evidence isn't there and your view is invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldCoot Posted September 15, 2018 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,192 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 429 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2017 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/12/1957 Share Posted September 15, 2018 (edited) On 9/13/2018 at 8:38 AM, shiloh357 said: No, I am simply going off of what the text says. YOU are the one trying to insert something into the text that isn't there. You want it to be about RT, but it is not. You are going to have get over your pride and just face the facts, that the evidence isn't there and your view is invalid. The text was written to Smyrna, but like all the other letters to the Churches in Revelation, all the Churches are to hear what Lord says. The context is letters to individual churches with the intent that all the churches take heed. The letters are all doctrinal in nature. They do not dwell on those outside the churches, instead the context is those inside the churches and doctrinal issues within the Churches. Essentially, each letter is a report card on each Church and all the Churches. In this case, those who claim to be Jews but are not, just like the letter before it to Ephasus talked about those who claim to be Apostles and are not. And those inside the Church who claim to be Jews and are not can really only mean those who claim that the Church has replaced the people of Jacob. Simple plain sense of the scripture and inserting nothing. Just like the key to real estate is location, location, location, the key to scripture is context, context, context. I am not inserting anything into the text. Just using sound hermeneutic principles combined with a understanding of grammatical structure. It is always telling when someone cannot effectively rebut the argument but has to demean the individual as you have. Edited September 15, 2018 by OldCoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 15, 2018 Share Posted September 15, 2018 24 minutes ago, OldCoot said: I am not inserting anything into the text. Just using sound hermeneutic principles combined with a understanding of grammatical structure. Yes, you are inserting something into the text that is not there. You are trying to make this text about RT even though RT did not exist at the time. You hell bent on making the text mean what YOU want it to mean. That is not sound hermeneutic principles. And this has nothing to do with grammar either. This is nothing but you trying to do some fancy theological gymnastics in an attempt to read your own opinion into the text rather than simply letting the Bible interpret itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldCoot Posted September 15, 2018 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,192 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 429 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2017 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/12/1957 Share Posted September 15, 2018 5 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: Yes, you are inserting something into the text that is not there. You are trying to make this text about RT even though RT did not exist at the time. You hell bent on making the text mean what YOU want it to mean. That is not sound hermeneutic principles. And this has nothing to do with grammar either. This is nothing but you trying to do some fancy theological gymnastics in an attempt to read your own opinion into the text rather than simply letting the Bible interpret itself. Ok. Have it your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts