Altering txaq007's Question For Christians.

[sexdrugsmoney]

I was unaware of that term when I created Sam in my initial post, but upon some research it appears to be an interesting Theological perspective, one that warrants further study into their biblical interpretations and the opposing interpretations Catholicism gives, cheers.

But to answer your question:

[ QUOTE ]
What if Sam isn't a dispensationalist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if Sam dismissed the concept of the Book of Revelations having a possible eschatalogical interpretation, <font color="blue">B)</font> still seems the better option IMHO:

The "sign" has acknowledged the Jews were right, therefore the Jewish concept of hell (Sheol) is also right.

Thus, Sam can remain a good and charitable Christian and merely factor specific daily study of the Torah into his life.

By doing this, Sam is "placing two bets" with his soul instead of one - one on Christian heaven (if the sign is a fake) and the Jewish heaven. (if sign is genuine)

This appears to be a win-win situation for Sam as he has doubled his chances for a good afterlife with the occurance of this favorable sign.

Ofcourse though, if Sam did rule out the Book of Revelations as having any eschatalogical meaning in his mind, Sam would have to ask himself why he is a Christian in the first place?

We know from the story that Sam "converted" to Christianity, so he chose it, thus "tradition" (ie- Following the religion of his father either without question or with question but then acceptance by choice of already practicing religion) is not a factor.

Furthermore, we can see from the story that Sam seems to put alot of thought into his choice, enough to do some comparitive research on many religions, so conversion to a religion to satisfy some "emotional" need that wasn't being met by the absence of religion, is unlikely.

So since Sam is a man of thought, living in a post-modern society where religion seems archaic and it is generally easier to not have one, it would seem illogical for Sam to choose a religion unless he felt that unfortunately it may be a contender to be correct.

Feel free to create you own character udontknowmickey who is a Christian, I'd be interested to see the thought process behind why your character is a Christian and what he/she would do in this situation.

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, let's answer this question honestly and suppose we are a Christian. (let's call this Christian 'Sam')

[/ QUOTE ]

hey my names sam [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[udontknowmickey]

denying dispensationalism isn't denying that Revelation has an eschalogical (sp?) meaning, but interpreting it in a different manner. It denies many of the "literal" interpretations that dispensationalists hold to (like beliving that the rebuilding of the temple was when Jesus rose from the dead)

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
denying dispensationalism isn't denying that Revelation has an eschalogical (sp?) meaning, but interpreting it in a different manner. It denies many of the "literal" interpretations that dispensationalists hold to (like beliving that the rebuilding of the temple was when Jesus rose from the dead)

[/ QUOTE ]

You're going to have to expound upon this.

[udontknowmickey]

I'm treading in unknown waters here.

But basically

premillenium dispensationalism is the common end times vision for most christians. This is due mostly to the fact that 1) Dispensationalism is pretty popular and 2) There's a very popular fiction series by LaHaye (or something like that) that presents the end times from such a viewpoint.

From what I've read of it, it takes a literal interpretation of the end times prophecy. The idea of rebuilding a temple. The necessity of a red calf who was without defect to sacrifice, so on so forth.

The other viewpoints (historic premilleniumism, amilleniumism, postmilleniumism (am I spelling these right?) ) largely reject that viewpoint because of different conflicts that crop up when looking at passages in reference (for example ch. 19 and 20 seems to diagram two casting down of the enemies of God, but if they've already been destroyed in ch. 19, why do they come back in 20?)

Thus I was merely commenting on your viewpoint that Sam has to see the temple literally rebuilt, whereas I personally see that prophecy as already fulfilled when Christ rose from the dead (as he prophisized himself).

Here's an interesting chart I stumbled upon. I don't know how accurate it is, but it seems pretty interesting.

http://www.fivesolas.com/esc_chrt.htm#chart1

More reading on this:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshol...chatology.html

Sometimes I like to read a random article from here. I haven't really formed an opinion myself other than to reject dispensationalism. ::shrug:: But when the end times come, the end times will come won't they.

[BluffTHIS!]

udm and spam, when are you going to realize that sdm is just jerking you off?

[udontknowmickey]

I think it's interesting, it leads me to look into topics that I only have a brief knowledge about. I thought you said you weren't going to respond to my posts anymore?

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm treading in unknown waters here.
But basically

premillenium dispensationalism is the common end times vision for most christians. This is due mostly to the fact that 1) Dispensationalism is pretty popular and 2) There's a very popular fiction series by LaHaye (or something like that) that presents the end times from such a viewpoint.

From what I've read of it, it takes a literal interpretation of the end times prophecy. The idea of rebuilding a temple. The necessity of a red calf who was without defect to sacrifice, so on so forth.

The other viewpoints (historic premilleniumism, amilleniumism, postmilleniumism (am I spelling these right?) ) largely reject that viewpoint because of different conflicts that crop up when looking at passages in reference (for example ch. 19 and 20 seems to diagram two casting down of the enemies of God, but if they've already been destroyed in ch. 19, why do they come back in 20?)

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you are talking about Revelation 19 &amp; 20, but there is no "coming back" inconsistency that I see.

Ch. 19

- Christ returns with heavenly armies.
- The Beast, False Prophet are cast into the "Lake of Fire" for decieveing the world.
- Everybody else is killed.

Ch 20.

- Satan is bound for 1000 years in bottomless pit.
- Martyrs who lost their life because they wouldn't worship the beast or recieve the "mark of the beast" live with Christ for 1000 years on the earth. (repopulation?)
- They are blessed because the second death (I presume Hell - destruction of the soul/consciousness?) can't touch them.
- Satan loosed after 1000 years to decieve the nations who are under Christ's reign in Israel. (test?)
- Armies of Satan surround Israel.
- Fire comes down from heaven and devours them, sending them down into the lake of fire where the beast and the false prophet already are.
- Judgement Day.

[ QUOTE ]

Thus I was merely commenting on your viewpoint that Sam has to see the temple literally rebuilt, whereas I personally see that prophecy as already fulfilled when Christ rose from the dead (as he prophisized himself).

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean John 2:19-22 ?

[ QUOTE ]

19 Jesus answered and said unto them, <font color="red">Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.</font>

20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

[/ QUOTE ]


But the passages which are said to correspond to the rebuilding of the Jewish temple are Matt 24:15; 2Thess 2:4, and Rev 11:1-2.

Words of Christ in red.

[ QUOTE ]

Matt 24:15: "<font color="red">When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place,</font> (whoso readeth, let him understand"

Dan 9:27: "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently this is said to be after the Jewish temple is rebuilt, halfway through the tribulation the antichrist will defile the temple by placing his image in it and demanding worship. (This may actually be the turning point where many people see him for what he is, and not the great man of peace they once thought.)

Ofcourse if this was to take place, something would have to get rid of the Dome of Rock (Earthquake? War?) as Jews would not worship in it even if Muslims allowed them to.

If one looks at Matthew 24 in context, Christ wasn't talking about the past or present here, but the future. (Matt. 24:6 <font color="red">"... but the end is not yet"</font>)

Christ could not have been talking about the past, as in 165BC Judas Maccabeus did liberate the temple from Seleucids who were defiling it (IIRC they put a big on the altar and sacrificed it) but in Matt 24, Christ is speaking of the future, the end of the world, and this corresponds to 2thess 2:4 which describes the son of perdition sitting in the temple.

Ofcourse all this is the "dispensationalist" interpretation apparently, and in the end interpretation differs.

[ QUOTE ]

Here's an interesting chart I stumbled upon. I don't know how accurate it is, but it seems pretty interesting.

http://www.fivesolas.com/esc_chrt.htm#chart1

More reading on this:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshol...chatology.html

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw them but thankfully came across Blue Letter Bible and their page is much simpler than those links or Wikipedia, check it out here.

[ QUOTE ]

Sometimes I like to read a random article from here. I haven't really formed an opinion myself other than to reject dispensationalism. ::shrug:: But when the end times come, the end times will come won't they.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it strange you reject dispensationalism, is this something to do with your Calvinist beliefs?

The Catholic Church's official stance is Amillennialism, which explains why they downplay or deny Revelation having any eschatological meaning.

Ofcourse them taking this position, gives some dispensationalists further reason to interpret Revelation 17 as being Mother Church.

So that leaves you with two choices: Historical Premillennialism &amp; Postmillennialism.

It would be interesting for you to ask your church leader what they believe. (I'll wager it's postmillennialism as Rushdoony was a Calvinist)

Cheers,
SDM

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
udm and spam, when are you going to realize that sdm is just jerking you off?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your feelings betray you.

[udontknowmickey]

1st off, thank you for the blue letter bible chart. That is much better than the chart I linked to.

You are correct that I reject dispensationalism, though I wouldn't say it was because of my calvinist beliefs, but rather my reformed beliefs. Originally there were calvinists who were dispensationalists (though they were 4 pointers and not 5), nowadays most dispensationalists are arminian (mostly because most Christians are arminian).

As part of the reformed view, I hold to the covenental view of history because it seems most consistant with the whole of the Bible. Echoing down the halls of time we see a big theme over and over "I will be your God, and you will be my people" It was God having one plan throughout all of history: to restore a fallen humanity into a relationship with Him. We see it with Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, ... ... so on down and into the NT of believers. This seems to bring a much more consistant view of history than a dispensational one, where it looks at history as God "dispensing" himself in different times to test man. Scofield is the guy who popularized this and he writes (pulls up link and quote) "A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God. Seven such dispensations are distinguished in Scripture." Thus the classic view has people being saved through their obdience in this test. aka salvation by works.

Today many dispensationalists take a view that they were saved by faith, but not in a future sin bearer (christ) but in the specific promises of that time. This to me denies salvation by christ alone. Plus it makes me wonder why they are ignoring the original meaning of the dispensations to redefine what happeend. It seems like the whole structure needs help.

The biggest difference between a covenantal view and a dispensational one is that of Isreal and the church. I believe that Scripture supports the fact that God has fulfilled his prophecies spoken to Isreal in the church today. Classic dispensationalists cling to a literal interpretation that has Isreal's promises yet to be fulfilled. (This is one of the reasons they cling to a pretrib. rapture too, of which I see no support for other than one very obscure verse). I feel this does injustice to many times where the OT prophecy is said to be fulfilled in the NT in a manner that wasn't that literal.

There are other things that came up as I read about it sometime last year (one of the people I knew was dispensational), but those were the big ones.

As a side note, the inconsistancy I see is that it seems like all the enemies of God are killed at the end of Ch. 19, but then new armies are raised up in the middle of Ch. 20 (yes you are correct, revelation). Who else is there to deceive? I don't know.

As far as I know, I don't think there is an official stance on the end times from a Reformed perspective (which are all unanimously Calvinistic). Things that are agreed upon are things like Christ's return, ressurection of wicked and righteous, judgement, and eternal life in heaven for righteous while eternal condemnation in hell for wicked (though recently there's been a liberal push for *poof*).

The popular ones seem to be Postmillennial (a very positive look on the future, gospel becomes stronger and church gets bigger) and Amillennial (people say that this is the "classic" view, though I don't know what that means, church is... the church), though historical premillennial (then comes tribulation where the church is persecuted increasingly more) is a viable option as well. I see no reason to reject Amillennial just because Catholics believe it (surprisingly enough there is some overlap!)

I believe my church's official stance is historical premill, though when i asked my pastor he said no one really knew why. Not all things in Scripture are clear in themselves. I believe the classic reformed confessions are silent on this issue.

With regards to your passages you cite, I must confess I am unclear. I feel like the temple has been raised in Christ's ressurection, and Paul says elsewhere that now we are God's temple (1 Cor. 3:17) and Jesus says to the woman at the well that we will not need to worship in Jerusalem or on a mountain, but in spirit and in truth (John 4). So I am unclear as to how that hashes with pointing to the prophecy of a man of lawlessness standing in a temple to God. Clearly if it was a Jewish temple, it would no longer be to God, because post-cross after the jews rejected the Messaiah, their faith was then in a false God (and I don't know about precross how that works out). So that leaves me rather confused. Reading up on a couple commentaries and my study bible, it suggests some possibilities: 1) This was fulfilled already in Emperor Nero. 2) The word "temple" refers to the church. 3) it's hyperbola, that the man of lawlessness will claim to stand and possess heaven. I dunno. All possibilities.

::shrug::

This makes me want to read up more on this, but my reading list is already overflowing. bleh!