Prophecy re-thinking?

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Timothy Litteral wrote:
 
> > > Did the Pharisees in fact literally DO this?  Um...
> Yes!
> 
> > Did God actually mean that?  No.
> 
> This is at the very best unresponsive.  I can't see how you
> missed the point that continuity could indeed be preserved
> by that FACT
> that religious fanatics "misinterpret" the Scriptures.
> Does this add to or take away from my arguement?  Does it
> add to or take away from yours?

I simply responded tersely in the same degree you responded to me,
having neither provided responsive notes to myself in such a 
statement.

> > Similarly people mistaken Rev. 13 to be literal.
> 
> I assume that you know this is called begging the question
> "it is wrong because it is incorrect."  I have asked for a
> "reason" to believe your "assertions" and I keep getting
> that you are not
> "excited" about literal interpretation of prophesy.  

I am willing to give details, but my point in writing the above
was not to give details but an example.  Someone said we could
go from chapter to chapter.  That is where details will come in.

> You
> make statements without listing ANY support Biblically or
> otherwise and say that I should reject my views (which you
> don't even know yet) because they are the ones everyone
> else has.  They are NOT.  I would like to GIVE them but I
> don't want to do this "piece mill" but start in the
> beginning of the book and build from there.

Agreed, and I will do so when we begin.

> > Think of it this way.   The world in sin already has a
> mark on them.
> 
> Oh really?  I haven't seen the Scripture on this.  What
> does this have to do with the mark of the beast being
> literal?

Let's watch our tones.  :-)

Scripture says all are born in sin.  Why cannot that be thought about
symbolically as all being "marked"?  No reason in the world why it
cannot be.  Point is, it may not or IT MAY BE intended for that.

I only offer a consideration.

> > Regarding buying and selling, Jesus said to the
> Laodiceans
> > that they could buy of Him gold tried in the fire.
> Literal?
> > No.
> 
> So?  Is your point that because there is some synbolism
> that it is ALL sysbolism?

No.  Just a thought that what may be considered literal may not be.

> > There is the MARK, NAME and IMAGE of the Beast.  Paul
> spoke of the marks of the death of Christ on him.
> 
> The scars from his beatings, perhaps?  Let's see, what was
> he talking about that sets the context?  This is
> continuity.

Looking beyond the sarcasm, I maintain that it is possible
for the MARK to be a "spirit" or general grouping,
such as the mark the angel was to write on the heads
of those who weep for Jerusalem.

 >He spoke of the NAME of Jesus and the image of God being
> imprinted onto believers.  Anti-christ simply has a
> counterfeit.  Image a computer?  No.  The image of satan -
> self-worship. Independence.
> 
> So it is self-worship and independance that is going to be
> made to speak?

Sure!  What might "made to speak" symbolism?  Babel built
a tower to erect their name and themselves.  And it certainly
spoke a mesage to God.  This is not unbiblical.

> > > >But we say the mark of the beast is literal?
> > >
> > > Why not?
> >
> > Continuity.  Counterfeitism.
> 
> Huh?  Satan has ALWAYS dealt in the physical realm: sex,
> murder, war, IDOLS ... Do these ALSO have spiritual
> implications?  Yes.  Is this ALL there is to them?  No.

Only the physical?  Do not forget that whn God reveals
a thing to us through a VISION, then it is not 
predicated upon whether Satan uses the physical or not.  It 
depends upon whether God chooses to show something spiritual
through a physical symbol, which He often did with parables, 
or not.  

I did not mean to upset anybody here.  Maybe we should simply 
not chat about this topic.

> > General revelation is a giving of what we should "know".
> There is a clear note sounded in the human spirit when
> revelation is given by God.
> 
> I am not at all sure what you are saying here.  If you
> don't "feel"
> something when I speak then it can't be of God?

You certainly know what a witness of the Spirit is.  Sure you do.
Have you ever read Scripture and felt something like a shockwave
hit your heart, and you knew God was opening things up?

> > > > And when I corss referenced the thoughts of
> Revelation
> > > with the rest of the Bible - WOW! - things opened up!
> > >
> > > This is true!  Think of the rapture in terms of the
> Flood
> > > and Enoch and the Tribulation in terms of Moses and
> Aaron
> > > (2 witnesses) before Pharoah!
> 
> > > I only read the Bible.
> >
> > That is you.  Where did you get your thoughts about the
> > two witnesses preaching to the 144,000?
> 
> Huh?  I missed that one.  I said "before *"PHAROAH"* or in
> Revelation, before the Anti-christ.

Maybe you did not mention that point earlier in another post about
the two witnesses and the 144,000.  I was not referring to
your present statement.

> > Most think the book of Rev. is for one generation.
> 
> I think it is just what it SAYS it is: about the events
> that will take place or aproximately 7 years.  Although you
> can ADD interpretations that CHANGE the simple STATEMENTS
> that it is
> about 7 literal years when you try to PROVE them
> Scripturally you have at best only a tenuous relationship
> that is truly "in the
> eye of the beholder."

To say seven years is based entirely upon a questionable interpretation
of Daniel 9.   Check it out.  That would be a good thought to discuss.

> > Agreed.  But let us check out all the teachings with
> openness
> > as though we start from scratch and rethink everything
> > we've been told.  Not accept anything for face value, as
> > though, "Well, prophecy teachers know what they were
> talking
> > about."  Let's be "Berean" and search it for ourselves.
> 
> This is ALL I do.

I did not say you did not.

> > Believe me, I can rattle off each of the three pre- mid-
> and post-trib arguments, for I once was in each of the
> three camps of interpretation. But I really dug into it
> myself.  Each argument can convince a person.
> 
> I don't know nor do I wish to know them.  The truth points
> out the errors of all but the pre-trib rapture.

Not true.  Read Rev 20:4-5 and notice that the FIRST
resurrection involves people beheaded for refusing the mark.
No other resurrection before this.  Some will argue
there are "parts" to the rapture/  But such thoughts are
refutable, though they may be true.

There would not be any postribers is postrib was so plainly wrong
as you may seem to think it is.

> > Amen.  And I found taht all three of the above arguments
> have holes where others have them filled, and vice versa.
> All three of them!
> 
> This is because people confuse "rapture" with "revelation."

That is highly interpretative.  What I mean by this is that
one can truly believe "rapture" and "revelation" are different.
The Bible does not say that in explicit language, but one may be 
convinced the Bible need not say it.  But we need to be open
to think and reconsider that perhaps they are not different.

Some say there is rapture and then revelation of Jesus.  Others
say they occur at once and maintain there are not THREE comings
of Christ.  The others say, "rapture and revelation" does not
imply three comings.  Others say it does.  And the argument
goes on since the Bible does not say, "First rapture and then 
seven years later revelation."  Things are interpreted
that way on BOTH sides.

> The church is "raptured" pre-trib (revelation of Christ),
> the 144,000 'see' Jesus as their savior mid-trib
> (revelation of Christ) and the sinners 'see' Jesus when he
> comes back WITH his Church at the end of the Tribulation
> (revelation of Christ).

Give me explicit verses for this.

> This is what God must "reveal."  How to discern these
> things.

One mans revelation is another man's heresy.  It is not 
conclusive.  That is all I am saying.

This seven year deal (lets have at it with that issue) all
stems from the thought that ANTICHRIST is the one that shall
confirm the covenant with many for one week.  What if it is Jesus
the writer is talking about?  Look at it.

Nowhere in Daniel 9 is the SUBJECT of the discussion said to be
the "prince that shall come", whose people destroy Jerusalem.
Hebrew grammar (I've been informed) as well as English grammar
forbis us from saying that prince is the subject of 9:27. In fact, the
MAJOR subject of the preceding sentences is THE MESSIAH.

So if it is the Messiah who confirms the covenant with many
for one week, and in the midst of the week the sacrifices cease,
it makes totally good sense.  When was Jesus Crucified in contrast
to His ministerial beginning?  3.5 years afterwards!!!  

Daniel predicted Christ's time of ministry!

And what
sacrifices ceased then?  All Judaic animal offerings were no longer
accepted by God.  The OT sacrifices ended at the Cross so far
as God was concerned.

Messiah was cut off after "69 weeks".

What covenant did He confirm?  He confirmed the NEW Covenant
("Testament") which He spoke about at the Last Supper
with His sacrifice.  Our's is the Abrahamic and Davidic
covenants confirmed, too.

He confirmed the covenant to Israel!  

3.5 years after Christ's death and resurrection, ISRAEL STILL
was the audience alone.  The Gentiles did not come in until
Acts 10.  Exclusively, the covenant was preached to Israel
until Acts 10.  And Daniel 9:24 said the seventy weeks were
for ISRAEL.  After that, the Gentiles became the major thrust!
Daniel predicted the mesage would cease being given to 
Israel as a whole as God would turn to the Gentiles.

> > Salvation is not like that. Salvation MUST be explicitly
> explained.  How could God save someone with veiled words?
> But words such as those found in Revelation are for the
> Church.  And even then tehre is warning that one must be
> sensitive for even the very elect ALMOST wil be deceived.
> Only those sensitive will recognize the true deal when it
> occurs.  That requires more than "explicit-only" reading.
> 
> Again I am lost.  Are you saying that God only reveals
> things to the saved?  We are not talking about
> "explicit-only" reading but
> what is God trying to "impart" in the Revelation.

Truths such as those in Revelation whose reception
by beleivers is described as a blessing for "hearing"
or "comprehension" distinctly points to the fact that
one will need special insight beyond that of common
insight in order to perceive such things.  And again,
1 Cor 2:12 cinfirms it is by SPIRIT given to "us"
born again believers.

> > It is a far far cry to be able to spiritually discern the
> truths of
> > Revelation than to read explicit truths about salvation,
> judgment
> > and eternal hope.  It is like Nebuchadnezzar's draem that
> must
> > be interpreted.  Only God can reveal the interpretation
> to a person.
> 
> Are you truing to say that since Nebuchadnezzar's dream had
> no physical fulfillment that... No, that can't be it.  

No.  You missed my point.  I am saying that the common Babylonian
could not interpret the dream.  God's servant Daniel had to do it.
Today that would Spirit-filled believers.


> Um,
> since the dream required Spiritual interpretation it had no
> connection to the
> physical world... No, that can't be it either.  Ah... Since
> the dream had no immediate bearing on the King and his
> kingdom or Daniel
> then it should be left to personal interpretation... No,
> that's not it either.  How about that since the
> interpretation had to come from God that no one would be
> able to get more than the general view
> of events... No, it did have immediate as well as future
> implications.  Let's try since this was revealed to his
> servant Daniel, the king couldn't comprehend the meaning...

Unnecessary rhetoric with a tinge of .....  you know.

> >Rapture is explicit.
> 
> You mean the Spiritual 'snatching away' (infilling of the
> Holy Ghost) that occurs when we are "called" from the
> "world of sin" (repentance) and our "old system" (past sin)
> is "judged" (remission) and "left behind" (sanctification)
> that we may be "lifted" (virtue/abitity to do good) into
> the "presence of Jesus" with our "glorified flesh"
> (cleansed through confession of sins) and are "with Him"
> (Christian) to obtain the "victory" (Holiness) to establish
> the "Kingdom" (witnessing) by enduring the "great
> tribulation" (persecution) of "resisting sin" (endurance)
> that leads to the "peaceful reign" (joy of the Lord) in our
> lives or do you mean that old idea that God is going to
> PHYSICALLY take people from the Earth?
> 
> It really is the same story over and over.

Rapture is explicit.  Not the symbols of Revelation.

> >But not WHEN it occurs.
> 
> The date, no.  The season (conditions), yes.

Not explicitly.  For the seasons involve non-explicit
symbols themselves!!

> > That shows my point in itself.
> 
> I missed this one.
> 
> You see my friend that these spiritual interpretations are
> real but they do not excluded the physical.  The Spiritual
> DEFINES the
> physical.  It was through OBSERVATION of the PHYSICAL
> that lead me to SEEK the SPIRITUAL.  This is what Paul
> meant.
> Don't think so? Cross reference Mars Hill.

Thsi does not take away from the fact that the symbols in Revelation
given through visions are not symbolic.  What visions in the Bible
were not?  John saw a vision, remember?

> God also USES the PHYSICAL to help us to UNDERSTAND the
> SPIRITUAL.  Cross reference parables.

Exactly my point.

> This is the purpose of prophesy!
> 
> If I "sound" flip in spots please forgive me.  I had three
> brothers
> and a really intelligent but mostly wrong sister and
> usually form my logical aurguments as well, arguments.  I
> also assume a certain familiarity due to lack of a person
> sitting in front of me and cannot see them "wince" or smile
> and therefore continue to express my opinion.  This has
> good and bad points.
> 
> As some who have contacted me privately already know,
> although I am VERY stubbornly opinionated and basically
> ignorant of protocol I am "plyable" when "properly"
> rebuked.
> 
> Timothy (starting to like this) Litteral
> 472 Grant St.
> Marion Ohio 43302
> trlitteral@usa.net
> http://members.tripod.com/~trlitteral

Are you a pastor, brother?  

-- 
---
In Christ,  
Pastor Michael F. Blume   
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/mblume.htm
http://www.netdot.com/jwg7192/writings/mike.htm