Archbishop criticizes Israel for "safrificing innocent civilians"

[l***@hotmail.com]

... snip a lot of political stuff ...

To be an anti-Semite is to stand against God who has called out this
people for Himself.

Who said anything about being an antisemite? Criticizing a government
for its actions has nothing to do with antisemitism,

It is Semitic because of the OC's eschatological and ecclesiastical
positions. It disavows Israel's existence in that it views that the
"church" has replaced it. It's amil position also disavows Israel's
place in the Divine plan of the ages. So when the OC criticizes
Israel, one must allow for the presuppositional base from which it
operates.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is Semitic because of the OC's eschatological and ecclesiastical
positions. It disavows Israel's existence in that it views that the
"church" has replaced it. It's amil position also disavows Israel's
place in the Divine plan of the ages. So when the OC criticizes
Israel, one must allow for the presuppositional base from which it
operates.

HHow does that make it "Semitic"?

I'm not disagreeing that it is "Semitic", but just wondering what you mean by
it. Christianity is a "Semitic" religion, in the sense that it arose in a
Semitic culture.

[Chris Smith]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Who said anything about being an antisemite? Criticizing a government
for its actions has nothing to do with antisemitism,

It is Semitic because of the OC's eschatological and ecclesiastical
positions. It disavows Israel's existence in that it views that the
"church" has replaced it.

Does the Orthodox Church really disavow the existence of the modern-day
nation of Israel? I find that hard to believe. If you mean that the
Orthodox Church disavows a simple equivalence between the modern-day
nation of Israel and the Israel from scripture and history that was
God's chosen people, then as a thinking person, I can only agree with
the Orthodox Church. I think it's just plain silly to imagine that
scripture was written to mislead nearly two millenia of people, only to
suddenly make sense when a new nation called Israel is created in the
mid 20th century. Israel from scripture refers to the Jewish people,
who are now scattered throughout the world; not just the ones who live
in the modern-day nation of Israel. The actions of a political entity
in the mid-east has little to do with it.

Israel in the Hebrew scriptures is also a sign and sacrament of the
Church in the modern world. Do you disagree with that?

You've still yet to make any kind of case that the position of the
Orthodox Church arises from a hatred of Jews (antisemitism). These are
straight-forward theological positions, and they arise from an
understanding of scripture and the Christian message. Your attempt to
cast accusations at people who don't agree with your eschatology is not
persuasive.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Chris Smith

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Who said anything about being an antisemite? Criticizing a government
for its actions has nothing to do with antisemitism,

It is Semitic because of the OC's eschatological and ecclesiastical
positions. It disavows Israel's existence in that it views that the
"church" has replaced it.

Does the Orthodox Church really disavow the existence of the modern-day
nation of Israel? I find that hard to believe. If you mean that the
Orthodox Church disavows a simple equivalence between the modern-day
nation of Israel and the Israel from scripture and history that was
God's chosen people, then as a thinking person, I can only agree with
the Orthodox Church. I think it's just plain silly to imagine that
scripture was written to mislead nearly two millenia of people, only to
suddenly make sense when a new nation called Israel is created in the
mid 20th century. Israel from scripture refers to the Jewish people,
who are now scattered throughout the world; not just the ones who live
in the modern-day nation of Israel. The actions of a political entity
in the mid-east has little to do with it.

The Orthodox Church believes that the Church is the New Israel, and thus the
heir of the promises made to Abraham. We are Zionists in the sense that the
Jerusalem above is our mother, and we look for the New Jerusalem.

That is what most Christians believe, with the exception of the Darbyites.

Over forty years agoI heard an Anglican bishop speak in a symposium on the
modern nation of israel. The symposium was organised by Jewish and Christian
societies at a university, and the bishop pointed out that with all due
respect to Jewish Zionists, Christians did not see anything special about the
modern state of Israel. It is a state like other states, and is to be judgfed
by the same standards as those we use to judge other states. War crimes are
war crimes, whether they are committed by German Nazis or Israeli Zionists or
British Socialaists or American Republicrats or Saudi Arabian Islamists. .

Post by Chris Smith
Israel in the Hebrew scriptures is also a sign and sacrament of the
Church in the modern world. Do you disagree with that?
You've still yet to make any kind of case that the position of the
Orthodox Church arises from a hatred of Jews (antisemitism). These are
straight-forward theological positions, and they arise from an
understanding of scripture and the Christian message. Your attempt to
cast accusations at people who don't agree with your eschatology is not
persuasive.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Chris Smith

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Who said anything about being an antisemite? Criticizing a government
for its actions has nothing to do with antisemitism,

It is Semitic because of the OC's eschatological and ecclesiastical
positions. It disavows Israel's existence in that it views that the
"church" has replaced it.

Does the Orthodox Church really disavow the existence of the modern-day
nation of Israel? I find that hard to believe. If you mean that the
Orthodox Church disavows a simple equivalence between the modern-day
nation of Israel and the Israel from scripture and history that was
God's chosen people, then as a thinking person, I can only agree with
the Orthodox Church. I think it's just plain silly to imagine that
scripture was written to mislead nearly two millenia of people,

I think it is silly not to recognize the historical record on the
issue. Amil
position was a johnie-come-lately. The Millennial position was the
Apostolic
position. How can you have a Millennial Kingdom without Israel?
Obviously
Paul taught that Israel, as an elect nation, was to be again restored.

Rom. 11:25-26 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this
mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial
hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has
come in; and thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "
The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from
Jacob."

Rev and OT prophecies have Christ returning to Israel to stand in
Jerusalem and to rule from the throne of David. He returns *with* the
saints (Rev 19) at the 2nd Adv, while He comes "in the air" to rapture
the Church, or returns *for* the saints prior to the Day of the Lord
which is inagurated by Daniel's 70th week.

Don't believe this? Then I dare you to read George Peter's "Theocratic
Kingdom," all three volumes, 4000 pages with a thorough analysis of the
biblical teaching, the historicity of the various positions, and a
detailed proposition and presentation of the Millennial school. Again,
this ALL presupposes that Israel has only been set aside for a time.
The unconditional covenants made to Abraham & David, added to the
Palestinian and New covenants, guarantee that the believing remnant of
Israel will inherit the promises.

Post by Chris Smith
only to
suddenly make sense when a new nation called Israel is created in the
mid 20th century.

But this wasn't the case in the Apostolic and 1st C. It was after
centuries of RC theology that it came into disrepute. Besides, what
does the Bible itself say about the revelation of these things?

Dan. 12:9 And he said, "Go your way, Daniel, for these words are
concealed and sealed up until the end time.

The Church is what according to Paul? It is a "mystery." It is a
parenthetical that was not disclosed in the OT. As its advent was a
mystery, so will be its rapture. Then the time of the Gentiles will be
at an ending as the promised Kingdom age will be erupting for believing
Israel.

Post by Chris Smith
Israel from scripture refers to the Jewish people,

Well at least on that point we solidly agree. Now take a look at Rev
7. Who are the 144,000? They are JEWS. Twelve thousand from each
trible. Who are the Two Witnesses? The are Jews who preach the gospel
to Jerusalem. Who is the woman in Rev 12:1? The twelve stars? The 12
sons of Jacob, yes? In Rev 12:6 we read of the "City of Refuge" (cp
Isa 33:16; Mic 2:12; Mt 24:16) as "a place prepared by God" to sheld
the believing remnant of Israel during the "Great Tribulation" or later
half of Daniel's 70th week as described by Jesus Himself in Mt 24. In
Mt 24 the disciples are specifically questioning about the state of
Israel in the last days. There is no mention or even allussion to the
Church in that chapter or the next.

Post by Chris Smith
who are now scattered throughout the world; not just the ones who live
in the modern-day nation of Israel. The actions of a political entity
in the mid-east has little to do with it.

Where have you been these last couple of years. How many, 2, maybe 3
million
immigrants from Russia alone? "Wings of Eagles." Again, prophecy
being fulfilled. And the OT prophets taught that unbelieving Israel
would first be regathered by into the land before Daniel's 70th week.
In the middle of that week of years, the Abomination of Desolation
would occur and again, a "dispora" of Jews would again occur. However,
at the end of "Jacob's Trouble" the would then be regathered back into
the land for the separation of the "sheep and the goats" upon which the
"sheep" or believing remnant are allowed to enter into the Kingdom Age.

Post by Chris Smith
Israel in the Hebrew scriptures is also a sign and sacrament of the
Church in the modern world. Do you disagree with that?

Absolutely because the Jewish Testament has not one single reference to
the "mystery" Church. So how can it be said that the OT speak about
anything concerning the Church. However, as Paul atests, the mistakes
that Israel made are to be regarded by the saints of the Church.
Again, this Rom 11. We are not to become arogant and think we have
replaced Israel.

Post by Chris Smith
You've still yet to make any kind of case that the position of the
Orthodox Church arises from a hatred of Jews (antisemitism).

Any amil institution is presuppositionally antisemitic. The RCC is a
prime example of this. They only cater to Israel when it suits their
purposes or gives a public aire.

Post by Chris Smith
These are
straight-forward theological positions, and they arise from an
understanding of scripture and the Christian message.

A mis-understanding of scripture. It requires that you treat the
prophetic passages allegorically. Like the RCC, the OC uses the
literal methodology for non-prophetic
passages, (excluding passages like the creation account in Gen 1-3) but
then suddenly and inexplicably just off the deep end into allegorical
(relativistic) methodology in passages that don't meet its
predetermined dogma. I've said it a dozen times, where is the amil
answer to Peter's "Theocratic Kingdom?" There is none either from the
RCC or from the OC.

Post by Chris Smith
Your attempt to
cast accusations at people who don't agree with your eschatology is not
persuasive.

"Come let us reason together?" As I have been addressing for two
decades here in SRC, the whole issue revolves around hermeneutical
positions. The historical/grammatic model (normative/literal) is
precisely the hermeneutic of not only the OT writers, not only the NT
writers, but Christ Himself when commenting on the Scriptures. Did
Christ allegorize the scriptures when confronting Satan in the
wilderness? What about His references to Adam or Noah, Moses etc? Oh,
but then Adam and Noah were not a literal, historical events it will be
argued. Well then, there you have it. You place your traditions over
the Scriptures. You disavow and disallow the teaching of sola
scriptura, i.e. that the Scriptures are today the sole authority given
to the Church. That the Scriptures judge all traditions of men not
vica versa.

Take a look at the historical development of the abandonment of the
literal position concerning Gen 1-3, or the creation record. It's
exactly as Peter predicted in 2 P 3. The allegorical hermeneutic does
just as foretold. If you don't interpret the opening chapters of
Scripture correctly, then you sure aren't going to get the last
chapters correct either. Most Catholic denominations completely
disregard the book of Revelation. And now the RCC has come right out
and disavowed a literal interpretation of the Genesis record.
According to OC posters here, this applies to them as well. Is it any
wonder then that these schools disavow Israel's remaining position in
God's plan for the elect? Very little.

[zach]

Post by Steve Hayes
Over forty years agoI heard an Anglican bishop speak in a symposium on the
modern nation of israel. The symposium was organised by Jewish and Christian
societies at a university, and the bishop pointed out that with all due
respect to Jewish Zionists, Christians did not see anything special about the
modern state of Israel.

And as an Anglican, he represents a very small part of Christendom.

Post by Steve Hayes
It is a state like other states, and is to be judgfed
by the same standards as those we use to judge other states. War crimes are
war crimes, whether they are committed by German Nazis or Israeli Zionists or
British Socialaists or American Republicrats or Saudi Arabian Islamists.

And kudos to the Jews in Israel for not bowing to the moral authority
of their judges--- the same judges who ignore the avowed genocidists
with whom they are supposed to make "peace."

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <tGSCg.59253$***@trnddc04>, Steve Hayes says...
[snip]

Post by Steve Hayes
That is what most Christians believe, with the exception of the Darbyites.

I assume you mean to include most if not all 'dispensationalists' under the name
'Darbyites'. But don't expect this label to be popular.

Post by Steve Hayes
War crimes are
war crimes, whether they are committed by German Nazis or Israeli Zionists or
British Socialaists or American Republicrats or Saudi Arabian Islamists.

Or by Hezbollah! Don't forget: it is the intense stubbornness for either side to
admit they are in the wrong that is making this conflict last. Bush refused to
criticize Israel until yesterday (when the White House voiced _very_ muted
criticism), and the Arab League refuses to recognize Hezbollah's war crimes in
using human shields, attaking civlain populations etc.

But back to the topic: how familiar _are_ you with 'dispensationalism' out
there in South Africa? Is it anywhere near as widespread as in the US? How aware
are you of their incredible attitude, endorsing _whatever_ the state of Israel
does, as if divine election shielded Israel from the possibity of doing any
wrong?

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <wGSCg.59267$***@trnddc04>, ***@hotmail.com
says...

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Chris Smith

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Who said anything about being an antisemite? Criticizing a
government for its actions has nothing to do with antisemitism,

It is Semitic because of the OC's eschatological and
ecclesiastical positions. It disavows Israel's existence in that
it views that the "church" has replaced it.

Does the Orthodox Church really disavow the existence of the
modern-day nation of Israel? I find that hard to believe. If you
mean that the Orthodox Church disavows a simple equivalence between
the modern-day nation of Israel and the Israel from scripture and
history that was God's chosen people, then as a thinking person, I
can only agree with the Orthodox Church. I think it's just plain
silly to imagine that scripture was written to mislead nearly two
millenia of people,

I think it is silly not to recognize the historical record on the
issue.

Why, yes. It _is_ silly. And it is you who if failing to recognize the
"historical record". Even your misuse of the labels 'amil' and
'millenial' are excellent examples of this. Especially your misuse of
'amil'. That is as _horrible_ term for our position.

But of course, you prefer teh horrible term, since it gives you an
excuse for your even more horrible distortion of our theology.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Amil position was a johnie-come-lately.

Wrong again. Rather, what the _historical record_ shows is that it was
the _minority_ position during the first few centuries. But the
development of history itself made it clear that the symbolic
interpretation of Revelations's "thousand years" had to be the only
correct one.

But this is _again_ where you ignore the historical record.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The Millennial position was the Apostolic position.

Not quite.What about Peter's "a day is as a thousand years"? That
doesn't sound millenial to me.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
How can you have a Millennial Kingdom without Israel?

The Church _is_ the New Israel.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Obviously Paul taught that Israel, as an elect nation, was to be
again restored.

No, you are misreading him. As usual.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Rom. 11:25-26 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of
this mystery,

Here is your first failing You _still_ do not understand this word
'mystery'.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
lest you be wise in your own estimation,

The original readers of the letter heeded this well. You do not. You
have found other ways to "be wise in your own estimation".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
that a partial

And here too, you have failed to understand the word: for the
implication of 'partial' is that the entire nation did not fall; those
who became Christian did not fall. But those who rejected Him _did_
fall.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles
has come in

And again you fail to understand: enter WHAT? If you had really
understood, you would know that he could say this _only_ because the
New Israel and the Church are ONE. The Gentiles enter into the Church,
the New Israel. Those from the nation of Israel who become Chrisian
are in the same New Israel, the same Church. Those who rejected Him
have fallen away, are in "of Israel" in name only, just like the Jews
he criticizes in Rom 2:17:

But if thou bearest the name of a Jew, and restest upon the law,
and gloriest in God, (Rom 2:17 RV)...

Post by l***@hotmail.com
and thus all Israel will be saved;

Here again you fail to understand him; he does _not_ mean "all Israel,
throughout all time". He means the whole nation _at that future time_,
when the whole nation converts.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
just as it is written, " The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will
remove ungodliness from Jacob."

And when He does, He will remove dispensationalism. He _has_ to, in
order to remove ungodliness.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Rev and OT prophecies have Christ returning to Israel to stand in
Jerusalem and to rule from the throne of David. He returns *with*
the saints (Rev 19) at the 2nd Adv, while He comes "in the air" to
rapture the Church, or returns *for* the saints prior to the Day of
the Lord which is inagurated by Daniel's 70th week.
Don't believe this?

Well, he might believe it, but that would be no cause to presume he
should share your dispensationalist interpretation of those "70 weeks"
of Daniel.

But of course, as usual, you aer trying to cover this up, and pretend
that anyone who disagrees with you is disagreeing with Scripture.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Then I dare you to read George Peter's "Theocratic
Kingdom,"

Ah, if only theology were this easy! If only we could intimidate our
ideological opponents by playing 'chikcen' with them!

[snip]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Dan. 12:9 And he said, "Go your way, Daniel, for these words are
concealed and sealed up until the end time.

Yet you claim to understand them now. And you wonder why so many of us
are so skeptical?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The Church is what according to Paul? It is a "mystery."

There's that word again; the one you misunderstand so badly.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is a parenthetical

A 'mystery' is NOT a 'parenthetical'!

[snip]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Chris Smith
who are now scattered throughout the world; not just the ones who
live in the modern-day nation of Israel. The actions of a
political entity in the mid-east has little to do with it.

Where have you been these last couple of years. How many, 2, maybe 3
million immigrants from Russia alone? "Wings of Eagles."

And the problem with this, Loren, is that many of those Russian
immigrants do not even meet the Jewish condition of who is a Jew! For
as you should well know, your _mother_ has to be Jewish to be
considered a Jew by rabbinical rules. But many of these immigrants
have pure Russian fathers.

So once you remove them from the count, you have a much less
impressive number: more like "wings of sparrows" than like "wings of
eagles".

BTW: there is now a significant movement in history that is even more
damaging to your belief: many of these immigrants are coming back_ to
Russia! Why? Because they find out they are looked down on, since they
are not "true Jews", because they are tiered of terrorist attacks,
because they realized they were overreacting to anti-semitism in
Russia...

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Again, prophecy being fulfilled.

No, rather, what is is _again_ is you and your fellow
dispensationalists taking an extremely jaundiced view of historical
events to _fool_ yourselves into thinking it is "prophecy being
fulfilled", just as Hal Lindsey did in the 70s when he predicted that
the Soviet Union would invade Israel and Communist China would come to
Israel's defense.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And the OT prophets taught that unbelieving Israel would first be
regathered by into the land before Daniel's 70th week.

And how did you reach the conclusion they taught that this would be
_unbelieving_ Israel that is regathered? Sounds like more
dispensationalist eisegesis to me.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
In the middle of that week of years, the Abomination of Desolation
would occur and again, a "dispora" of Jews would again occur.
However, at the end of "Jacob's Trouble" the would then be regathered
back into the land for the separation of the "sheep and the goats"
upon which the "sheep" or believing remnant are allowed to enter into
the Kingdom Age.

Post by Chris Smith
Israel in the Hebrew scriptures is also a sign and sacrament of the
Church in the modern world. Do you disagree with that?

Absolutely because the Jewish Testament has not one single reference to
the "mystery" Church.

And as usual, it is when you are most confident, so over-convident
that you say 'absolutlely', that you are most wrong.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
So how can it be said that the OT speak about anything concerning the
Church.

Easily. If you weren't so stuck in your circular reasoning, you would
realize the answer. It is in allegorical interpretation, just as Paul
did with Sarah and Hagar.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
However, as Paul atests[sic], the mistakes that Israel made are to be
regarded by the saints of the Church.

What was _this_ supposed to mean? 'Regarded' in what way?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Again, this Rom 11. We are not to become arogant and think we have
replaced Israel.

That is not what he said. Unlike you, Paul _does_ admit that we have
been grafted in Israel's place. Read him again:

For if thou wast cut out of that which is by nature a wild olive
tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree:
how much more shall these, which are the natural branches, be
grafted into their own olive tree? (Rom 11:24 RV)

The warning is not to be proud, NOT for your reason, but because
Israel _can_ be "grafted into their own olive tree". But for this to
happen, they have to not be part of it before the grafting!

But in your indecent zeal for eisegesis, you overlook this.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Chris Smith
You've still yet to make any kind of case that the position of the
Orthodox Church arises from a hatred of Jews (antisemitism).

Any amil institution is presuppositionally antisemitic.

Nonsense. That is as ridiculous as the oft-heard accusation that any
criticism of Israel is 'anti-semitic'. Oh, that's right! You do this
too!

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The RCC is a prime example of this. They only cater to Israel when
it suits their purposes or gives a public aire.

And when they do, they give a boost to the rumors that the Pope wants
to move his See to Jerusalem.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Chris Smith
These are straight-forward theological positions, and they arise
from an understanding of scripture and the Christian message.

A mis-understanding of scripture.

No, the mis-understanding is all yours. In particular, you have
_rejected_ the Christian message, substituting a perverse distortion
of it in its place.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It requires that you treat the prophetic passages allegorically.

Which is the only way to treat _many_ prophecies. Or have you never
noticed? Certain prophecies not only never had a literal fulfillment,
but now can _never_ have it. Nebuchadnezzar no longer commands troops!

But no doubt you will try to sweep this important principle under the
rug.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Like the RCC, the OC uses the literal methodology for non-prophetic
passages, (excluding passages like the creation account in Gen 1-3)
but then suddenly and inexplicably just off the deep end into
allegorical (relativistic) methodology in passages that don't meet
its predetermined dogma.

You are exposing your ignorance of both RCC and OC tradition here. For
this vapid generalization is simply NOT true. But every time we try to
explain this to you we run in to the same brick-wall of yoru
stubborness. You just keep on repeating the same nonsense as if mere
repetition made you right.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I've said it a dozen times, where is the amil answer to Peter's
"Theocratic Kingdom?" There is none either from the RCC or from the
OC.

I don't know why you are so sure of this. And even if it were true,
there might be very good reasons for us and them to ignore that book.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Chris Smith
Your attempt to cast accusations at people who don't agree with
your eschatology is not persuasive.

"Come let us reason together?"

Casting accusations at people is NOT "reasoning together", Loren. If
you really understood Scripture, you would know this. If you really
understood Scripture, you would have _refrained_ from casting
accusations at people who don't agree with your theology.

No wonder you fell into the dispensationalist delusion. You don't
understand the _far_ more basic principles Scripture teaches, and yet
you try to tackle eschatology.

This is as foolhardy and futile as trying to learn tensor analysis
when you flunked high-school algebra.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
As I have been addressing for two decades here in SRC, the whole
issue revolves around hermeneutical positions.

But you have NOT been "addressing" this for two decades! You have been
_mentioning_ it, yes. And you have ususally mentioned it in very
heated tones. But _addressing_ it is something quite different! To
_address_ the topic would require that you engage in honest debate,
refraining from your superheated diatribes, entering into _dialog_
with people.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The historical/grammatic model (normative/literal) is precisely the
hermeneutic of not only the OT writers,

So you love to repeat, but you never take into account Paul's own use
of allegory. Instead, you invent fantastic excuses for ignoring this.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
not only the NT writers, but Christ Himself when commenting on the
Scriptures.

Not true. Again, we have the example of Paul on Sarah and Hagar. And
what about Matthew's interpretation of Isa 7:15? How can you deny that
this was interpreted allegorically? When was Christ nourished on curds
and honey? As Keil & Delitzsch point out, this _cannot_ refer to the
food of infancy.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Did Christ allegorize the scriptures when confronting Satan in the
wilderness?

Well, so _what_ if He did not use allegory here? That proves
nothing. It could be because use of allegory would have been
completely uncalled for _in this place_.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
What about His references to Adam or Noah, Moses etc? Oh, but then
Adam and Noah were not a literal, historical events it will be
argued. Well then, there you have it. You place your traditions
over the Scriptures.

That is NOT "placing traditions over the Scriptures". If you _really_
understood Scripture you would know this. Why? Because if you really
understood what Scripture teaches about the human and divine natures
of Christ, then you would _also_ understand how this is reflected in
the Church. And if you understood _this_ you would understand how
"Scripture speaks in the language of ordinary men". And finally, you
would understand how this _last_ principle entitled Christ to speak of
Adam and Noah as literally historically existing, without actually
assuming that they were.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You disavow and disallow the teaching of sola scriptura, i.e. that
the Scriptures are today the sole authority given to the Church.

We "disavor and disallow" it because it is NOT true. "Sola scriptura"
is _itself_ a "tradition of men". How many times must people point
this out to you? Scripture itself does _not_ teach "sola scriptura"!
Only your false interpretation of 2 Tim 3:16-17 teaches 'sola
scriptura'. And that false interpretation _has_ become a "tradition of
men", at least among Protestants.

[snip]

[Chris Smith]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Don't believe this? Then I dare you to read George Peter's "Theocratic
Kingdom," all three volumes, 4000 pages

Do you realize what you just said? If you require reading 4000 pages of
biased scriptural analysis as a prerequisite to having a conversation,
then feel free to ignore me.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Any amil institution is presuppositionally antisemitic.

And at that, I will also feel free to ignore your degrading rhetoric.
No, you may not redefine "antisemitic" to mean "doesn't agree with me",
and your attempt to do so is deeply insulting and gravely contrary to
Christian morality.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by Steve Hayes
That is what most Christians believe, with the exception of the Darbyites.

I assume you mean to include most if not all 'dispensationalists' under the name
'Darbyites'. But don't expect this label to be popular.

Most "dispensationalist" teaching is derived originally from Darby.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Steve Hayes
War crimes are
war crimes, whether they are committed by German Nazis or Israeli Zionists or
British Socialaists or American Republicrats or Saudi Arabian Islamists.

Or by Hezbollah! Don't forget: it is the intense stubbornness for either side to
admit they are in the wrong that is making this conflict last. Bush refused to
criticize Israel until yesterday (when the White House voiced _very_ muted
criticism), and the Arab League refuses to recognize Hezbollah's war crimes in
using human shields, attaking civlain populations etc.

The war will not end unless all interested parties recognise the need to
reduce fear and insecurity for ALL people living in the region, and stop
playing the zero-sum game of trying to gain peace and security for themselves
by increasing the fear and insecurity of others.

People who claim to be conducting a "war on terror" by inducing "shock and
awe" have become the enemy they claim to be fighting.

Post by Matthew Johnson
But back to the topic: how familiar _are_ you with 'dispensationalism' out
there in South Africa? Is it anywhere near as widespread as in the US? How aware
are you of their incredible attitude, endorsing _whatever_ the state of Israel
does, as if divine election shielded Israel from the possibity of doing any
wrong?

It's quite popular. Many Christian bookshops sell Scofield Reference Bibles,
and people sometimes buy them with without knowing what they are, and so get
the idea that dispensationalism is the mainstream Christian view.

I picked up "The late great planet earth" in the science fiction section of a
secular book shop chain, and I'm sure a lot of other people did.

A lot of people don't pick up the whole thing, but they do tend to pickup the
eschatology. A lot of charismatics, for example, don't realise that the age of
the Holy Spirit has passed, and that speaking in tongues etc became obsolete
onece the scriptural canon was complete, but they still hang on to the
premillennial "rapture" idea.

Theres a useful summary in this blog:

http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2006/07/otisolatry.html

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson
Why, yes. It _is_ silly. And it is you who if failing to recognize the
"historical record". Even your misuse of the labels 'amil' and
'millenial' are excellent examples of this. Especially your misuse of
'amil'. That is as _horrible_ term for our position.

It is a term that you yourself have used to describe the OC
eschatological position.

Post by Matthew Johnson
But of course, you prefer teh horrible term, since it gives you an
excuse for your even more horrible distortion of our theology.

How so? You always make these broad enduendoes but you never seem
willing to reply honestly with any sort of substantiation.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Amil position was a johnie-come-lately.

Wrong again.

No, I am not. The context was -in comparison with Millennialism. It
is at least 200 years after Millennialism. Also, though it does have
the greater following, it has much less scriptural support. It
absolutely requires the allegorical methodology of interpretation.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Rather, what the _historical record_ shows is that it was
the _minority_ position during the first few centuries.

As I said, it came at least 200 yrs after Chiliasm.

Post by Matthew Johnson
But the
development of history itself made it clear that the symbolic
interpretation of Revelations's "thousand years" had to be the only
correct one.

Wrong again. The literal interpretation fits perfectly with a literal
interpretation of not only NT prophecy, but OT prophecy as well. There
is no need to jump into this husk and shell game to make the bible say
what your position presupposes it to say. Satan is bound for 1000 yrs
during the Millennial Kingdom which Christ refered to in Mt 24, 25.
Daniel's 70th week is to be interpreted literally even as the first 69
weeks were fulfilled literally. You're the one who must jump hurdles
and turn a blind eye to force an allegorical interpretation of the 70th
week.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The Millennial position was the Apostolic position.

Not quite.What about Peter's "a day is as a thousand years"? That
doesn't sound millenial to me.

Context please? Who is being honest here? Who is being exegetically
consistent? Surely not your illussion. Peter was NOT talking about
The Millennium, now was he? He was talking about the time in regards
to God who stands outside of it. You are most dishonest.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
How can you have a Millennial Kingdom without Israel?

The Church _is_ the New Israel.

Paul never allows this. In fact, he continually makes the distinction.
He still claims himself as being a Jew as opposed to being Gentile.
Now why is that? Why would he write Rom 9-11 if Israel had now been
completely and forever replaced by the Church. If this doctrine were
true, then a great exposition would naturally follow. However, the
last Apostolic book to be written, Rev, clearly states that Israel is
the primary purpose of God (ch 7). The Church is NEVER spoken of as a
'tribe' (let alone with the specificity of 12 distinct tribes), nor as
a nation. The Old Testament prophets speak of the nation Israel in the
Day of the Lord. How could this be a revisionary rendering as you
speak and yet remain a "mystery" as Paul spoke of it. Paul spoke of
the "mystery" of the Church as being NO WHERE evident in previous
revelation. Only eisegesis will find the Church in either the OT or in
the NT prior to Jn 13-16.

You draw this conclusion off of one single verse (Gal 6:16) which
contextually does not best fit your position, but the position of Rom
9-11, that being in reference to the believing remnant of Israel.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Obviously Paul taught that Israel, as an elect nation, was to be
again restored.

No, you are misreading him. As usual.

No, I am not. I am reading in light of the entire teaching of
scripture. I am reading him contextually to his argument. I am reading
him in light of all his other epistles. It is you who through
subtility subvert his meaning.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Rom. 11:25-26 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of
this mystery,

Here is your first failing You _still_ do not understand this word 'mystery'.

Eph 3:9--"the dispensation of the mystery"- Paul plainly declares
that the Church Age (technically the inter-advent age which includes
the Church Age) was hidden in the counsels of God from ages and
generations past, but is now revealed and is therefore no longer a
mystery, i.e., secret.

The verb revealed in Eph. 3:5 is in the aorist tense. This in
conjunction with the word 'now' indicates that the revelation of the
mystery was made definitely at a former period in *these* [i.e. NT]
times. This completely contradicts your view.

The mystery of Eph 3 is the equality of Jews and Gentiles **in the body
of Christ** during the inter-advent age. It in no way disqualifies the
distinctiveness of Israel any more than men cease to be men and women
cease to be women both in office and in person. "Neither male nor
female."

Come on. You got to do better than that. You can't even be bothered
to explain your position let alone defend it.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
that a partial

And here too, you have failed to understand the word: for the
implication of 'partial' is that the entire nation did not fall; those
who became Christian did not fall. But those who rejected Him _did_
fall.

CONTEXT The whole premise of Rom 9-11 is to answer the objection that
if the elect of the Church are incapable of being separated from God
(Christ), then what about the rejection of Israel in whom it is plainly
seen were unconditionally elected. The Pauline answer is that Israel
has always been viewed as being made up of both a believing remnant
(which inherit the promises specific to Israel) and the unbelieving
remnant (who claimed that physical lineage was enough to suffice
inheritance).

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles
has come in

And again you fail to understand: enter WHAT? If you had really
understood, you would know that he could say this _only_ because the
New Israel and the Church are ONE.

Not so. If you would accept the literal/normative reading of not only
the OT prophecies but the promises as well, you would see the Pauline
Jewish explaination that they would enter into the promises made
specifically to Israel. ONLY by pre-supposition can you have the
Church inheriting promises made specifically to the believing
**physical** decendants of Jacob/David.

If one where to take you supposition to fruition it would deny the fact
that the Messiah had to come from the Davidic lineage. Yes? You were
saying.......

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
and thus all Israel will be saved;

Here again you fail to understand him; he does _not_ mean "all Israel,
throughout all time". He means the whole nation _at that future time_,
when the whole nation converts.

Did I say that? Does any one say that? I don't know of any
theological position that states that. That is totally incongruent
with his argument. You press the extreme. "All" in the context is
"all the elect." It is the elect or believing remnant of Israel who
will be saved. This is congruent with the NT revelation that "no one
comes to Me unless the Father draws him," All that the Father gives Me
shall come to Me" and "Of those whom Thou hast given Me I lost not
one." The promises granted to the believing remnant of Israel WILL
inherit ALL the promises specifically given to ISRAEL, not the Church.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Dan. 12:9 And he said, "Go your way, Daniel, for these words are
concealed and sealed up until the end time.

Yet you claim to understand them now. And you wonder why so many of us
are so skeptical?

You give NO answer. You merely hurl inuendoes. Your reply is not only
weak, it is silly. You are no theologian. A theologian would present
a defense for his argument and then provide reasons why his opponents
arguments are either weak or wayward. You, as most often is the case,
do neither.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is a parenthetical

A 'mystery' is NOT a 'parenthetical'!

It is in this case as I have already provided an explaination and a
defense of. What have you provided to the discussion other than your
usual pittle?

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Where have you been these last couple of years. How many, 2, maybe 3
million immigrants from Russia alone? "Wings of Eagles."

And the problem with this, Loren, is that many of those Russian
immigrants do not even meet the Jewish condition of who is a Jew! For
as you should well know, your _mother_ has to be Jewish to be
considered a Jew by rabbinical rules. But many of these immigrants
have pure Russian fathers.

So now you are God? You are able to declare who is an Israelite and
who is not? What does YHVH Himself declare in the OT but that He has
always maintained a believing remnant within elect Israel. Again, you
must maintain this pre-supposition of yours to make the argument.

Post by Matthew Johnson
BTW: there is now a significant movement in history that is even more
damaging to your belief: many of these immigrants are coming back_ to
Russia! Why? Because they find out they are looked down on, since they
are not "true Jews", because they are tiered of terrorist attacks,
because they realized they were overreacting to anti-semitism in
Russia...

Talk about "sparrows!" More like a Dodo bird! ;-)

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And the OT prophets taught that unbelieving Israel would first be
regathered by into the land before Daniel's 70th week.

And how did you reach the conclusion they taught that this would be
_unbelieving_ Israel that is regathered? Sounds like more
dispensationalist eisegesis to me.

This is because not only do you allegorize the prophecies, you don't
even know them to begin with. What about Joel? What about Daniel 9?
What about Zephaniah's prophecy? These are all ludicrous if 1) not
taken literally, 2) referring to unbelieving Israel.

Also Paul clearly makes the distinction and the allowance in his prayer
in Romans 10:1: "My heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is,
that they might be saved." Chapters 9-11 of Romans are
dispensational in character, dealing with Israel's past election (Rom.
9), Israel's present salvation (Rom. 10), and Israel's future
restoration (Rom. 11). Paul, then, is writing primarily of unbelieving
Israel (e.g., 10:1-3, 16).

No more time tonight. I will have to look up the specific OT prophecy
concerning the return of unbelieving Israel back into the land. I'm
sure it is the "dry bones" prophecy but will wait to make a more
informed statement on it.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Chris Smith
And at that, I will also feel free to ignore your degrading rhetoric.
No, you may not redefine "antisemitic" to mean "doesn't agree with me",
and your attempt to do so is deeply insulting and gravely contrary to
Christian morality.

He's beginning to make anti-Semitism look like a good thing.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by zach

Post by Steve Hayes
Over forty years agoI heard an Anglican bishop speak in a symposium on the
modern nation of israel. The symposium was organised by Jewish and Christian
societies at a university, and the bishop pointed out that with all due
respect to Jewish Zionists, Christians did not see anything special about the
modern state of Israel.

And as an Anglican, he represents a very small part of Christendom.

As an _Anglican_, perhaps. But his opinion happens to be representative of a
great many christians. Namely, of almost all who have not fallen into the
millenialist error of dispensationalism.

[snip]

Post by zach
And kudos to the Jews in Israel for not bowing to the moral authority
of their judges--- the same judges who ignore the avowed genocidists
with whom they are supposed to make "peace."

What _are_ you talking about, Zach? Do you have _any_ evidence that these judges
ignored the "avowed genocidists"?

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Chris Smith

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Don't believe this? Then I dare you to read George Peter's "Theocratic
Kingdom," all three volumes, 4000 pages

Do you realize what you just said? If you require reading 4000 pages of
biased scriptural analysis as a prerequisite to having a conversation,
then feel free to ignore me.

Not at all. What I am suggesting is that you become informed before
you press forth with any sort of dogmatic position. I've studied amil
theologians as well as postmil and post trib. I have several of each
in my library. Peter's books just happen to be the most thorough
analysis concerning the millennium regardless of position. I was not
advocating that you read all 4000 pages but I am sure that once you
skipped around even the 1st vol., you'd recognize that there is much
more to be reckoned with than first imagined.

Post by Chris Smith

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Any amil institution is presuppositionally antisemitic.

And at that, I will also feel free to ignore your degrading rhetoric.

Not degrading unless you feel so defensive that that is all that is
left to you. That the statement at its basic intent.
Presuppositionally, amillennialism does pragmatically operate out of a
predisposed antisemitic stance. Even beyond the position of the
individual adherent, it of a necessity makes God antisemitic in the
context of the specific promises made to national Israel.

Rom. 11:1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it
never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the
tribe of Benjamin.

Argumentive context: Israel as an elect entity to which God has bound
Himself to certain promises which cannot be and are not transfered over
to the Church.

Post by Chris Smith
No, you may not redefine "antisemitic" to mean "doesn't agree with me",
and your attempt to do so is deeply insulting and gravely contrary to
Christian morality.

I think this bravado is just a cop out and a bunch of noise hoping to
cover up the fact that you are either unwilling or unable to debate
point for point.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson
As an _Anglican_, perhaps. But his opinion happens to be representative of a
great many christians. Namely, of almost all who have not fallen into the
millenialist error of dispensationalism.

I have yet to see anything flowing out from your pen offering even a
hint of informed theological debate. You seem only capable of firing
off unsubstantiated and insubstantial little flaming match stick darts.

As I've pointed it out before, your replies indicate that you have
never entered into any studied theological debate. Of the dozen or so
journals that I subscribe to, absolutely none of them would allow a
single paragraph of what you have written. I don't know a bible school
let alone a seminary that would tollerate your "piddle."

How about a substantive reply once in a while. You like to take pot
shots at dispensationalism and millennialism, but you never present
anything pro or con to relevant points. Why is that?

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <up8Eg.2324$***@trnddc07>, Steve Hayes says...
[snip]

Post by Steve Hayes
Most "dispensationalist" teaching is derived originally from Darby.

True. But many dispensationalists have since distanced themselves from Darby;
not to mention they are all still operating under the fiction that since it is
all 'biblical', it did _not_ come from any one man, much less from Darby.

So like I said, do not expect this label to be popular.


[snip]

Post by Steve Hayes
The war will not end unless all interested parties recognise the need to
reduce fear and insecurity for ALL people living in the region, and stop
playing the zero-sum game of trying to gain peace and security for themselves
by increasing the fear and insecurity of others.

All the more reason to fear it will go on until the end of the world:-(

Post by Steve Hayes
People who claim to be conducting a "war on terror" by inducing "shock and
awe" have become the enemy they claim to be fighting.

The administration and its lackeys on Fox News are still trying to hide the
fact, but many of those who supported the invasion of Afghanistan were _against_
the invastion of Iraq, until fooled with the WMD deception -- some still against
even after the deception.


[snip]

Post by Steve Hayes
It's quite popular. Many Christian bookshops sell Scofield Reference Bibles,
and people sometimes buy them with without knowing what they are, and so get
the idea that dispensationalism is the mainstream Christian view.

I am sorry to hear that. I had hoped it was more a US/Britain delusion.

Post by Steve Hayes
I picked up "The late great planet earth" in the science fiction section of a
secular book shop chain, and I'm sure a lot of other people did.

But at least that shop knew to put the book in the science _fiction_ section;)

Post by Steve Hayes
http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2006/07/otisolatry.html

Bookmarked! Thanks for the great blog, even though I can't read the links on the
right;)

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
Why, yes. It _is_ silly. And it is you who if failing to recognize the
"historical record". Even your misuse of the labels 'amil' and
'millenial' are excellent examples of this. Especially your misuse of
'amil'. That is as _horrible_ term for our position.

It is a term that you yourself have used to describe the OC
eschatological position.

And when I used it, I used it ONLY with the same caveat; that it is a
horrible term for our theology.

But of course, you forgot this, didn't you?

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
But of course, you prefer teh horrible term, since it gives you an
excuse for your even more horrible distortion of our theology.

How so? You always make these broad enduendoes but you never seem
willing to reply honestly with any sort of substantiation.

This patently false, Loren. I _have_ replied with substantiation. Your
response was to _ignore_ it, and return to your shouting.

At least, it would be patently false, if there -were- such a thing as
'enduendo'. But there isn't, so you are just spouting gibberish
again. No wonder people don't bother to refute you.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Amil position was a johnie-come-lately.

Wrong again.

No, I am not.

Yes, you are. We have been over this before.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The context was -in comparison with Millennialism.

I knew that.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is at least 200 years after Millennialism.

No, that is not true.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Also, though it does have the greater following, it has much less
scriptural support. It absolutely requires the allegorical
methodology of interpretation.

The "allegorical methodology" is required anyway, despite all your
strenuous attempts to deny it. So you have no case here.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
Rather, what the _historical record_ shows is that it was
the _minority_ position during the first few centuries.

As I said, it came at least 200 yrs after Chiliasm.

And you were wrong then, too. After all: we really _don't_ know when
it started (aside from the quote from Peter's epistle) since too few
documents from that time survived.

That, BTW, is yet another reason why your entire approach to Biblical
intepretation is so seriously broken: without relying on Tradition, we
really do NOT know how these verses were interpreted in the early
years.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
But the development of history itself made it clear that the
symbolic interpretation of Revelations's "thousand years" had to be
the only correct one.

Wrong again.

No, not even once. Much less 'again'.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The literal interpretation fits perfectly with a literal
interpretation of not only NT prophecy, but OT prophecy as well.

No, it does not, and that is why you invent reasons for certainty and
then cover up the uncertainties with snake oil.

BTW: Loren, if "literal interpretation of prophecy" were the only way,
then you would have GREAT trouble with Eze 26:7. For Nebuchadnezzar
never _did_ take Tyre, much less destroy the walls. Only Alexander the
Great achieved that.

That is why I have been telling you: your insistence on only literal
interpretation of prophecy is UNACCEPTABLE.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
There is no need to jump into this husk and shell game to make the
bible say what your position presupposes it to say.

But that "husk and shell game" is all you have been doing all this
time.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Satan is bound for 1000 yrs during the Millennial Kingdom which
Christ refered to in Mt 24, 25.

And this is one of the uncertainties I mention above. It is _far_ from
certain that it it some "millenial kingdom" he is referring to in Mt 24,
25. No, it is the end of the world and Last Judgment He is referring
to.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Daniel's 70th week is to be interpreted literally even as the first
69 weeks were fulfilled literally.

But the "first 69 weeks" didn't -happen- as described there literally!

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You're the one who must jump hurdles and turn a blind eye
to force an allegorical interpretation of the 70th week.

No, you are the one "jumping hurdles and turning a blind eye".

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The Millennial position was the Apostolic position.

Not quite.What about Peter's "a day is as a thousand years"? That
doesn't sound millenial to me.

Context please?

Remember that it was you, not I, who bragged of an exceedingly
thorough understanding of these passages due to reading "The Millenial
Kingdom". So you should not need these refs.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Who is being honest here?

Not you. You know the context, yet you ask for it. Nothing honest
about that.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Who is being exegetically consistent?

Not you. Why, you _cannot_ be, because of Eze 26:7.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Surely not your illussion.

The illusion is all yours. Perhaps that is why I can spell the word,
and you cannot.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Peter was NOT talking about The Millennium, now was he?

That is irrelevant. He -was- talking about the interpretation of
time-periods in Scripture, giving us an example of when the literal
interpretation must be avoided. And he was talking about the time
until the Lord's return, which has a _lot_ to do with the Millenium --
if there is one.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
He was talking about the time in regards to God who stands outside of
it.

But what did he _say_ about this time?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You are most dishonest.

No, you are, as this accusation of yours shows so clearly. There is
nothing 'dishonest' in pointing out what you ignore and dislike.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
How can you have a Millennial Kingdom without Israel?

The Church _is_ the New Israel.

Paul never allows this.

Yes, he does.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
In fact, he continually makes the distinction.

No, he does not.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
He still claims himself as being a Jew as opposed to being Gentile.

That is NOT the same distinction! By NO MEANS does it iply that Paul
makes a distinction between the Church and Israel (old or new).

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Now why is that?

Because your premise ISN'T EVEN TRUE.

[snip]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You draw this conclusion off of one single verse (Gal 6:16) which
contextually does not best fit your position, but the position of Rom
9-11, that being in reference to the believing remnant of Israel.

When will you learn to stop pretending you know how I draw
conclusions? I do NOT draw it "off of one single verse".

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Obviously Paul taught that Israel, as an elect nation, was to be
again restored.

No, you are misreading him. As usual.

No, I am not. I am reading in light of the entire teaching of
scripture.

That is a patent excuse for ignoring the context. And a pretty poor
one, too.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I am reading him contextually to his argument. I am reading
him in light of all his other epistles.

You never do any of these things. Rather, you who shout 'context,
context', have a persistent habit of either ignoring or
misrepresenting the context.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is you who through subtility subvert his meaning.

No, I do not. And I can spell "subtlety", too.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Rom. 11:25-26 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of
this mystery,

Here is your first failing You _still_ do not understand this word
'mystery'.

Eph 3:9--"the dispensation of the mystery"- Paul plainly declares
that the Church Age (technically the inter-advent age which includes
the Church Age) was hidden in the counsels of God from ages and
generations past, but is now revealed and is therefore no longer a
mystery, i.e., secret.

As usual, Loren, the "shell game" and 'dishonesty' is yours. For what
else can I call it, when you say 'clearly', and nothing is clearly in
your favor at all? Yet such is _exactly_ the case here. It is by NO
MEANS clear that the "dispensation of the mystery" refers to your
"inter-advent age".

Rather, the 'dispensation' referred to here is that the Gentiles will
be made co-heirs with the Jews. Nothing more!

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The verb revealed in Eph. 3:5 is in the aorist tense.

Another of your childish subtle dishonesties! You go on and on about
impressive sounding technical detail, even though NONE of it supports
your case.

So _what_ if it is aorist? This does not support you.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This in conjunction with the word 'now' indicates that the revelation
of the mystery was made definitely at a former period in *these*
[i.e. NT] times.

No, by NO means does it imply that the "former period" was before NT
times.

And if you knew what was revealed, this would not shock you. But you

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This completely contradicts your view.

Of course, it does nothing of the kind. Of _course_ the dispensation,
that the Gentiles would be made co-heirs, was revealed a few years
before the Apostle wrote these years. This does not contradict my view
at all.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The mystery of Eph 3 is the equality of Jews and Gentiles **in the
body of Christ**

This part you got correct. Pity you then immediately ruined it with

Post by l***@hotmail.com
during the inter-advent age.

No, NOT just "during the inter-advent age", but forever. We are
forever co-heirs with them.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It in no way disqualifies the distinctiveness of Israel any more than
men cease to be men and women cease to be women both in office and in
person. "Neither male nor female."

More impressive detail that does not actually support you.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Come on. You got to do better than that. You can't even be bothered
to explain your position let alone defend it.

This is nonsense, Loren. I can and I do. And when I do, you retreat
into blatant dishonesty, by refusing to respond on point at
all. Instead you take refuge in irrelevant bombast.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
that a partial

And here too, you have failed to understand the word: for the
implication of 'partial' is that the entire nation did not fall;
those who became Christian did not fall. But those who rejected Him
_did_ fall.

CONTEXT

Ah, yes. 'Context': the thing you ignore over and over again.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The whole premise of Rom 9-11 is to answer the objection that if the
elect of the Church are incapable of being separated from God
(Christ), then what about the rejection of Israel in whom it is
plainly seen were unconditionally elected.

No, that is not right. You are resorting to the fallacy of the
"complex question". And we have been over this before, so I will not
repeat the details here.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The Pauline answer is that Israel has always been viewed as being
made up of both a believing remnant (which inherit the promises
specific to Israel) and the unbelieving remnant (who claimed that
physical lineage was enough to suffice inheritance).

You don't even get this part right! Only the believing remnant is the
_true_ Israel (Rom 9:6).

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles
has come in

And again you fail to understand: enter WHAT? If you had really
understood, you would know that he could say this _only_ because
the New Israel and the Church are ONE.

Not so.

Yes, so.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
If you would accept the literal/normative reading of not only
the OT prophecies but the promises as well, you would see the Pauline
Jewish explaination that they would enter into the promises made
specifically to Israel.

No, even if I shared your false belief, I would not share your false
reasoning here: even given this premise, your conclusion does not
follow!

Post by l***@hotmail.com
ONLY by pre-supposition can you have the Church inheriting promises
made specifically to the believing **physical** decendants of
Jacob/David.

How boldly you contradict Scripture here, even as you unfurl the
banner of "literal/normative reading"!

No, Loren, the false 'pre-supposition' is yours here. For we already
_have_ inherited promises that appear (to you) to have been made
"specifically to Israel". Not only that, but we are _clearly_ told
that the promise was to Abraham's sons _by faith_. Otherwise, Abraham
would be the father of only TWO nations, not of MANY (Rom 4:18)

Post by l***@hotmail.com
If one where to take you supposition to fruition it would deny the fact
that the Messiah had to come from the Davidic lineage.

This is another example of your blatant dishonesty. No, it would
not. But you love making outrageous, scandalous, false accusations
like this because you know that you have to fling mud at others to hide
your broken logic.

[snip]

That, BTW, is why I feel no obligation to answer the rest of your
nonsense. Learn to argue like a civilized human being, reaching the
level of ethics even atheists surpass you in, and then I might answer
the rest.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Steve Hayes
Most "dispensationalist" teaching is derived originally from Darby.

Not true. We now have a 500AD transcript of a letter which details the
major points contained within traditional dispensationalism. But as I
often note, every Christian is a dispensationalist. So the argument is
only as to the degree to which we divide the historic economies of God
and His people.

As Paul wrote: "that in the dispensation of the fulness of times",
indicating that he too taught dispensationalism. Again, it is merely
to what degree you wish to catologue the various economies of God's
relationship with His creation.

Post by Steve Hayes
A lot of people don't pick up the whole thing, but they do tend to pickup the
eschatology. A lot of charismatics, for example, don't realise that the age of
the Holy Spirit has passed,

No. Because the Spirit has been given as a "pledge" a down payment, a
contractual agreement "sealed to the day of redemption."

Post by Steve Hayes
and that speaking in tongues etc became obsolete
onece the scriptural canon was complete, but they still hang on to the
premillennial "rapture" idea.

You're mixing apples and oranges. Very very few dispensational
theologians have such a view as this concerning the "sign" gifts.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is a term that you yourself have used to describe the OC
eschatological position.

And when I used it, I used it ONLY with the same caveat; that it is a
horrible term for our theology.
But of course, you forgot this, didn't you?

No. I did not. However, you have never provided another term. You
are against millennialism therefore you are a-millennial. I don't care
what term you wish to use, it is still the same theological
presuppositions.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
But of course, you prefer teh horrible term, since it gives you an
excuse for your even more horrible distortion of our theology.

How so? You always make these broad enduendoes but you never seem
willing to reply honestly with any sort of substantiation.

This patently false, Loren. I _have_ replied with substantiation. Your
response was to _ignore_ it, and return to your shouting.

WHERE? Where was there ANY substantive, on the topic, rebuttal? You
and I have a greater disparity of understanding that I have thought of
in the past if you think you are presenting substantive rebuttals. As
I said before, compared to something I would submit to a theo journal
or for other publication, your replies in comparision wouldn't make it
in a high school debate club.

Post by Matthew Johnson
At least, it would be patently false, if there -were- such a thing as
'enduendo'. But there isn't, so you are just spouting gibberish
again. No wonder people don't bother to refute you.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Amil position was a johnie-come-lately.

Wrong again.

No, I am not.

Yes, you are. We have been over this before.

And here is exactly what I was referring to in the above paragraph.
This is just about the extent of your "substantive" replies.
Amillennialism and its allegorical hermeneutic has been a subject of
discussion within the Orthodox Jewish theological camp. I would
suggest you read Michael Avi-Yonah and Zvi Baras, "Society and Religion
in the Second Temple Period" (Massada Publishing Ltd., 1977),
especially p. 185

Avi-Yonah writes:

It was inconceivable that the promises should not be fulfilled and that
the Kingdom of Heaven upon the earth should not arrive. All Jewish
groups believed this implicitly. The disagreement among them concerned
only the date of the fulfillment and the means of its accomplishment.
Whereas the Sadducees did not carry forward the messianic hope of
prophecy ...Even Christianity, essentially messianic...is the product
of the great messianic promises. By reason of foreign influence,
however, it sought the messianic Kingdom of God in a way other than
that of Judaism. While Jewish messianism is firmly rooted in this
world, in earthly life, even in the "new world" of the days of the
Messiah, Christian messianism is a "kingdom not of this world."

end quote.

Note the statement about "foreign influence". This is a clear reference
to the pagan allegorical school of interpretation which basically
rejected by nearly all orthodox Jewish scholars. The book further
elaborates on the "Greek element" [allegorical interpretation]
inserted into hermeneutics:

Quote:

This renewed messianic idea, envisioned by the author of the Book of
Daniel, was to be echoed in its essential thrust in the literature that
took its clue from it. Its influence on Christianity is unmistakable.
Once Christianity, however, introduced a Greek element into Jewish
monotheism it changed the basic concept of the Kingdom of Heaven which
it had borrowed from Judaism (p159).

end quote

This is an incredible statement which reveals that Avi-Yonah clearly
understood the allegorical influence that makes "the political"
difference between Amillennial Christian interpretation and Judaism..

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
As an _Anglican_, perhaps. But his opinion happens to be representative of a
great many christians. Namely, of almost all who have not fallen into the
millenialist error of dispensationalism.

I have yet to see anything flowing out from your pen offering even a
hint of informed theological debate.

Although it is far from beauty, the problem here is ONLY in the "eye
of the beholder".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You seem only capable of firing off unsubstantiated and insubstantial
little flaming match stick darts.

You seem only capable of firing off long, tedious and boring flaming
darts. That is why I don't wonder that you are incapable of
recognizing substantiated arguments.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
As I've pointed it out before,

And you were wrong then, too. No change in your latest posts, I see.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
your replies indicate that you have never entered into any studied
theological debate.

Of course not. Rather, your claim to be able to discern whether I have
entered into such debate is a sure proof of your overweening arrogance
and presumption. But these are barriers to entry into any true
theological debate.

So once more, as SO often, you are yourself deeply guilty of the
accusations you so lightly fling at others. But why am I not
surprised?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Of the dozen or so journals that I subscribe to, absolutely none of
them would allow a single paragraph of what you have written.

This is actually quite off topic, since I am not _trying_ to write in
the style suitable for a journal. But it does inspire me to ask: do
any of these journals accept what _you_ write?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I don't know a bible school let alone a seminary that would tollerate
your "piddle."

And I don't know one that would accept your abominations.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
How about a substantive reply once in a while.

I have given many. You ignored them and returned to flinging false
accusations -- as you are still doing now.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You like to take pot shots at dispensationalism and millennialism,
but you never present anything pro or con to relevant points. Why is
that?

Because dividing into "pro or con" is a really poor way to approach
any topic. If you had gone to a -respectable- seminary AND done well
there, you would know this. NO respectable seminary teaches a "pro and
con" system of hermeneutics!

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is at least 200 years after Millennialism.

No, that is not true.

Both Jewish and early Christian sources are on my side.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Also, though it does have the greater following, it has much less
scriptural support. It absolutely requires the allegorical
methodology of interpretation.

The "allegorical methodology" is required anyway, despite all your
strenuous attempts to deny it. So you have no case here.

The allegorical methodology, though used by some Jewish scholars, (but
definitely NOT orthodox Jewish scholars), is a pagan invention is one
will but do a little linquistic study.

But all that aside for the moment. Dispensationalism and Millennialism
are all grounded within the covenants. And the very nature of a
covenant is that they must be understood by all parties concerned.
Linquistically, the language employed is not extra ordinary, let alone
allegorical. They are common in their useage so that the ideas
intended within the contract may be accurately expressed and commonly
understood. As far as the Kingdom is concerned, even Mary interpreted
the angel's announcement of it literally. This normal human
government. Who signs on the dotted line of a business agreement
thinking later that they have some right to interpret it allegorically.
NO ONE does that. When looking for loop-holes in contracts, the
observations and objections are ALWAYS dealt with from a literal
perspective. No law school in the world teaches contract law with any
sort of non-verifiable, grammatically real and substantial meaning. So
why should anyone think that the covenants made by God are somehow
magically made to be understood allegorically. This is a man-made
invention.


"The appointment, arrangement, disposition, or institution of a
contractual relation, in whatever light it may be regarded, presupposes
two parties: the one who promises or imparts, and the other who will
receive or attains. In all legally binding transactions, when a
promise, agreement or contract is entered into by which one party gives
a promise of value to another, it is universally the custome to explain
such a relationship and its promises by the well-known laws of language
contained in our grammars or in common day usage. It would be regarded
absurd and trifling to view contractual agreements in any other light."


[Borken & Burger, "An Introduction to Constitutional Law," p. 45.]

So why, pray tell us, should such a universal rule then be laid aside
when discussing the covenants (contracts) found in the Bible? If it is
important in the temporal government of men that basic and plain
grammatical sense of the language of a contract be maintained, then it
is not equal in weight but superior in weight that the comprehension of
Divine covenants be clearly and distinctively understood. The
covenants are anthropological in nature in order that men may
understand the govenment of God. Allegorical interpretation is
subjective and relativistic. NO ONE writes agreements or interprets
legal agreements, allegorically.

Now, you state that you provide substantial analysis of points of
debate -here is your chance to show yourself true. Explain to us all,
using plain grammatical sense, why anyone should interpret the
Covenants allegorically?

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson
That, BTW, is yet another reason why your entire approach to Biblical
intepretation is so seriously broken: without relying on Tradition, we
really do NOT know how these verses were interpreted in the early
years.

There is "Tradition" and then there is "tradition." Either way, both
stand under the authority of Scripture. Any science or tradition MUST
conform to what scriptures states or it is to be recognized as false.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
But the development of history itself made it clear that the
symbolic interpretation of Revelations's "thousand years" had to be
the only correct one.

Wrong again.

No, not even once. Much less 'again'.

Both the Davidic throne and the Davidic Kingdom are to be understood
*literally,* or the promises which flow out from them are invalidated
as well. That the Covenants are confirmed by an oath of God, they
cannot be broken or altered in any way. Covenants, by their very
nature, must make grammatical sense. And if the Divine impression
granted David be erroneous, then is necessarily disparaging to his
prophetic office. Substantiating the literal interpretation is
Solomon's claim that the covenant was fulfilled in himself but only in
so far that he too, as David's son, sat on David's throne. Your
position, like others, wrongfully infer that the entire promise is
conditional over against the most express declaration to the contrary
as to the One, the pre-eminent Seed.

Your predisposition to disavow the unconditional nature of the
covenants has far and wide implications, not the least of which concern
the Messiah and His Kingdom included.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
The literal interpretation fits perfectly with a literal
interpretation of not only NT prophecy, but OT prophecy as well.

No, it does not, and that is why you invent reasons for certainty and
then cover up the uncertainties with snake oil.

Only the literal interpretation allows a common and sensible
understanding of the promises involved in each.

Post by Matthew Johnson
BTW: Loren, if "literal interpretation of prophecy" were the only way,
then you would have GREAT trouble with Eze 26:7. For Nebuchadnezzar
never _did_ take Tyre, much less destroy the walls. Only Alexander the
Great achieved that.
That is why I have been telling you: your insistence on only literal
interpretation of prophecy is UNACCEPTABLE.

I will answer but briefly, though it will serve as an example for this
NG to understand that my answers are substantiating even when you pull
these tired, old arguments out for rehashing.

Ezek 26:7-12 details certain predictions concerning the wealthy city
Tyrus. In vs. 7-11 it states how Nebuchadnezzar would come and
destroy the city. At the 12th verse the person changes and it says
"Ezek. 26:12 "Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey
of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant
houses, and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the
water." [NASB]

The first verses were literally fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar within a
very few years after this prophecy was given. In fact, if you had
been careful and done a little study on the interpretive history of
this passage, the nearness of time has caused some to doubt that it was
prediction at all and not simply a historical accounting passed off as
a prophetic marvel. However, this need not be discussed here.

The last phrase was not fulfilled at all, "and it seemed most
improbable it ever would be. What could the words mean? Nebuchadnezzar
had taken a full vengeance, but had never thought of this.... Who then
would be found to wreak such unheard-of vengeance upon the unoffending
ruins?"[Urquhart: The Wonders of Prophecy, p. 16] . For over 240 yrs
no fulfillment was seen. Then, as you rightly noted, Alexander
appeared and in his all-conquering career came to the shores where
Tyrus had stood. And "the rest is history" as they say, and against
your predisposition, it was fulfilled literally.

Nice little end around, Matthew, but it is an old play which never
works.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Satan is bound for 1000 yrs during the Millennial Kingdom which
Christ refered to in Mt 24, 25.

And this is one of the uncertainties I mention above. It is _far_ from
certain that it it some "millenial kingdom" he is referring to in Mt 24,
25. No, it is the end of the world and Last Judgment He is referring
to.

And this is why I have said that you reveal how little studied you are
in eschatology. You've shown it to be true before and for the most
part, did not participate in eschatological discussions, but because of
your sure dislike for me, literalism, dispensationalism and
millennialism (not to mention pretrib rapture millennialism), you have
ventured out into the waters. You should learn to swim first.

Mt 24 requires one to consider what has first occurred in ch 12 & 13.

Matt. 12:23 And all the multitudes were amazed, and began to say, "This
man cannot be the Son of David, can he?"

The context clear deals with the subject of the Kingdom which was
promised David. It is clear because the Pharisees reacted accordingly.
The mention of affirmation by a sign in 12:38ff, compared to 16:1-4,
again attests to a literal interpretation of the unconditional covenant
made with David as given to us in 2 Sam 7:10ff. There are no
allegorical propositions made in this passage. The covenant is made as
all contracts are made -literal and grammatically sensible. But the
important aspect of these two chapters is found in Christ's judgment
concerning "this generation." Back in 11:16, "kingdom of heaven" being
the context, Christ states:

Matt. 11:16 "But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like
children sitting in the market places, who call out to the other
children"

which speaks of factions and inconsistencies concerning the Davidic
Covenant and its promise of the Kingdom. The Kingdom had been
proclaimed by John the Baptist (Mt 3:3), by the disciples at Christ's
own request (10:7), by the 70 (Lk 10:9), but were rejected by the
religious leaders. The offer of this kingdom was then withdrawn and
from that point on and the "Mystery Kingdom", that "kingdom" which is
offered between the 1st Adv and the rejection of the offer of the
Davidic/Millennial Kingdom and the 2nd Adv and setting up of the
Millennial Kingdom which will then be accepted by the believing remnant
which is purfied as the prophet Zephaniah attests.

That brings us to Mt 23 which concludes with

Matt. 23:36 "Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this
generation.

"This generation" is a characterization of the of unbelieving remnant
of Israel.

Matt. 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones
those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children
together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you
were unwilling.
Matt. 23:38 "Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!
Matt. 23:39 "For I say to you, from now on you shall not see Me until
you say, ' Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!'"

This very last phrase speaks of the acceptance of the Messiah and His
Kingdom. THIS is the context of Mt 24 when the disciples request of
Jesus, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign
of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" (Matt. 24:3).

Mt 24:5 parallels the first seal of Rev 6
Mt 24:6 parallels the 2nd seal
Mt 24:7 incorporates the parallel of both the 3rd and 4th seals.
Mt 24:9 parallels the 5th seal. "THEN..." [comp Lk 21]

"Then" of verse 9 is the same as v 21 which speaks of the specific
prophecies concerning the "Time of Jacob's Trouble." (Jere 30:7)
Verse 14 marks the end of the Gentile Age. Verse 15 parallels Daniel's
prophecy concerning the Antichrist breaking his covenant with Israel in
the "midst of the week." The "Great Tribulation," (Mt 24:21)or the
"Time of Jacob's Trouble," (Jere 30:7) or the "time of distress" (Dan
12:1, 7) all refer to the last 3 1/2 yrs of Daniel's 70th week. In
that the first 69 weeks were literally and historically fulfilled by
*National* Israel, so the last week will be equally fulflilled BY
ISRAEL.

The Tribulation or Daniel's 70th week is concluded by the 2nd Advent of
Christ (Mt 24:29, 30). There is a brief interum between the return of
Christ and the setting up of the Davidic Kingdom. In this interum (40
days?) the believing, both Jew and Gentile, and the unbelieving are
separated. "As in the days of Noah" does NOT refer to the Rapture
because "those taken" were the unrighteous and "those left" were Noah
and his family, or the elect or righteous. This is exactly opposite of
what occurs when Christ returns *for* His saints (1 Thes 4) while at
the 2nd Adv, He returns *with* His saints (Rev 19).

Also, Mt 25 speaks of "virgins" which cannot represent the Church
because it is the "Bride of Christ." Both the Vulgate and the Syriac
scriptures insert "went out to meet the Bridegroom and bride" into
their translations, understanding (correctly) that the virgins
represented Israel, believing and non-believing.

Mt 25:31 directly relates to a literal fulfillment of the Davidic
Covanent. No allegorical interpretation needed here. "His glorious
throne" is on earth where all who live through Daniel's 70th week, will
be judged and separated.

A side bar: Post Tribulationism is proven to be false because it
leaves no one to populate the Millennial Kingdom over which Christ
reigns except unrighteous men which Mt 24 & 25 declares are taken away
from inheriting the Kingdom. If all the rightous are raptured to meet
Christ in the air at His 2nd Advent, then they become as the angel's,
no longer capable of procreation. Thus there is no one left to
populate the Millennium which is contrary to other passages, most
especially as implied in Rev where the nations at the end of the
Millennium will once again rebel against Christ even though He
personally is ruling in Jerusalem, not in heaven as in the case of
Armageddon.

ONLY by means of the literal interpretation do all the prophecies
harmonize.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Daniel's 70th week is to be interpreted literally even as the first
69 weeks were fulfilled literally.

But the "first 69 weeks" didn't -happen- as described there literally!

How can you say that? EVEN Simeon (Lk 2:25, 26) illustrates this fact!
From the rebuilding of the wall (Neh 2:1 at 445 BC till the "cutting
off of the Messiah" (Dan 9:26) literally fulfills 69 weeks of years or
483 yrs. It was fulfilled by and in Israel literally.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The Millennial position was the Apostolic position.

Not quite.What about Peter's "a day is as a thousand years"? That
doesn't sound millenial to me.

Context please?

Remember that it was you, not I, who bragged of an exceedingly
thorough understanding of these passages due to reading "The Millenial
Kingdom". So you should not need these refs.

The problem is, you are eisegetically bringing Peter's metaphor to bear
upon the literal 1000 yrs of Rev. Peter's argument is against
uniformitarianism (2 P 3:4) as a basis for denying the return of
Christ. "His promise" of 3:9 is in reference to the 2nd Advent, not to
the Millennial Kingdom directly. So Peter's metaphor speaks
uniformitarianism, not against Chiliasm as you proposed.

Again, you are either deliberately dishonest in your debate or just
grabbing straws.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Who is being exegetically consistent?

Not you. Why, you _cannot_ be, because of Eze 26:7.

Where is YOUR analysis of the passage in question? I've already
refuted you unlearned interpretation of Eze 26 and now I have answered
your false analysis of 2 Peter.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Peter was NOT talking about The Millennium, now was he?

That is irrelevant.

It IS NOT. Because you made the proposition that Peter was directly
addressing the length of the Kingdom Age. Obviously Peter was not
doing this because chronologically he doesn't address the 2nd Advent
until the following verse. You would have us believing that Kingdom is
set up before He returns?

Post by Matthew Johnson
He -was- talking about the interpretation of
time-periods in Scripture,

NO! A THOUSAND TIMES NO!!!

2 Pet. 3:4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever
since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the
beginning of creation."

It's not about the perceived slackfulness of of Christ's return.

2 Pet. 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count
slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but
for all to come to repentance.

There is no definitive mention of the chronology of events until 3:10
wherein he refers to the "Day of the Lord". And if you were familar
with the OT and the NT use of this phrase, you would understand that it
includes everything after the taking out of the Church. Both of Paul's
letters to the Thessalonnians addresses this. 2 The 2:2, 3 address it
specifically. The Day of the Lord includes Daniel's 70th week, the
advent of the Antichrist or "the man of lawlessness", the 2nd Adv, the
separation of sheep and goats and the Millennial Kingdom. The OT often
employs the term to designate the various aspects of the "end times."

Post by Matthew Johnson
giving us an example of when the literal
interpretation must be avoided. And he was talking about the time
until the Lord's return, which has a _lot_ to do with the Millenium --
if there is one.

As I said, you are grasping at straws. Yes, the 2nd Adv is prior to
the the Millennial Kingdom, however, verse 8 is also prior to verse 9.
You, my dear boy, are being precisely eisegetical in a vain support of
your position. You are NOT letting the passage read for itself. You
have brought your predetermined Amillennial presupposition and read it
into the passage. VERY dishonest and Very reckless handling of the
Word of God.
*******
Enough. There is no need to rebut your post any further. It is only
more of the same eisegesis. You have been thoroughly dishonest in your
handling of the Word, all for the sake of trying to maintain your
amillennial position. Have you no regard of what God thinks of such
things? Do you never spend time in prayer before making such hasty
replies which necessitate a true dividing of the Word? Your
allegorical bent has ruined you. For you do not handle even those
passages which you afford literal interpretation in grammatical
honesty. I know you will rebuff me for it. but I am not saying this
with any sort of personal satisfaction, but you need to meditate on the
seriousness of handling the Word of God. "ALL scripture is inspired"
which means that it is totally harmonious even as God is in harmony
with Himself. "He is not a God of confusion, is HE?" And yet your
treatment of the Word bring forth just such fruit. Especially so,
allegorism. Allegorism knows nothing of objectivity. It is and only
subjective.

[Paul]

<snip>>>

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Chris Smith

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Any amil institution is presuppositionally antisemitic.

And at that, I will also feel free to ignore your degrading rhetoric.

Not degrading unless you feel so defensive that that is all that is
left to you. That the statement at its basic intent.
Presuppositionally, amillennialism does pragmatically operate out of a
predisposed antisemitic stance.

<snip>

Um, not exactly..... See, "antisemitic" (sic) is not a theological term.
It's pejorative, akin to calling someone "racist". Merriam-Webster Online
defines "anti-Semitism" as "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews
as a religious, ethnic, or racial group". That does NOT equate to
"amillenial", nor indeed to ANY particular disposition toward end-times
theology. In particular, it is not the same as "opposed to the equation of
the current political state called 'Israel' with the Biblical people-group
referred to as 'Israel' in the New Testament", which is what I think you're
trying to say.

So, I have to side with Chris on this -- not necessarily his theology (or
yours; I'm not trying to take a position in the debate itself), but his
reaction to the use of "anti-Semitic". It's offensive name-calling and is
out of context in this discussion. I'd suggest you come up with some other
shorthand way of characterizing what you're responding to....

(Unless, of course, you can convince us that the pejorative usage must
logically follow from the theology. But, I'd suggest you not go that route,
as it will be an extremely difficult case to make convincingly and without
offending still more people -- especially in this newsgroup.....)

In Christ,
Paul

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <m6wEg.37210$***@trnddc08>, ***@hotmail.com
says...

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Chris Smith

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Don't believe this? Then I dare you to read George Peter's "Theocratic
Kingdom," all three volumes, 4000 pages

Do you realize what you just said? If you require reading 4000 pages of
biased scriptural analysis as a prerequisite to having a conversation,
then feel free to ignore me.

Not at all. What I am suggesting is that you become informed before
you press forth with any sort of dogmatic position.

You are backpedaling, Loren. That is not at all what you really said
before.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I've studied amil theologians as well as postmil and post trib.

So you say. But judging from the stubborn, ignorant bias you show in
your use of the term 'amil', you have 'studied' only with a jaundiced
eye. Such 'study' is not worthy of the name at all.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I have several of each in my library.

What is this idle boast supposed to prove? Every one of us who owns a
respectably sized library, even every one of us who _knows_ someone
who does, knows that this boast of yours proves nothing.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Peter's books just happen to
be the most thorough analysis concerning the millennium regardless of
position.

It will take more than your word to convince him or me of this. For
your _own_ analysis is never thorough. So it is easy to believe you
would not recognize "thorough analysis" when you see it.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I was not advocating that you read all 4000 pages

So you say now. But this _is_ backpedaling, since you really did say
to read all 4000 pages.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
but I am sure that once you skipped around even the 1st vol., you'd
recognize that there is much more to be reckoned with than first
imagined.

Post by Chris Smith

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Any amil institution is presuppositionally antisemitic.

And at that, I will also feel free to ignore your degrading rhetoric.

Not degrading unless you feel so defensive that that is all that is
left to you.

No, you really _are_ degrading. And this is all the more shameful,
since you are so hypersensitive when you claim others are
insulting/degrading to YOU. Yet you play innocent when you are caught
being degrading to others.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
That the statement at its basic intent.

He didn't believe you, neither do I. Take the hint.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Presuppositionally, amillennialism does pragmatically operate out of
a predisposed antisemitic stance.

This is at least as bigoted a claim as antisemitism is.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Even beyond the position of the individual adherent, it of a
necessity makes God antisemitic in the context of the specific
promises made to national Israel.

Nonsense. By no means does any 'amil' stance make God antisemitic.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Rom. 11:1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it
never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the
tribe of Benjamin.
Argumentive context: Israel as an elect entity to which God has bound
Himself to certain promises which cannot be and are not transfered over
to the Church.

That is NOT the context! On the contrary: it is _your_ illicit
'pre-supposition' that it is.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Chris Smith
No, you may not redefine "antisemitic" to mean "doesn't agree with
me", and your attempt to do so is deeply insulting and gravely
contrary to Christian morality.

I think this bravado is just a cop out and a bunch of noise hoping to
cover up the fact that you are either unwilling or unable to debate
point for point.

Well, who _cares_ what you think? Those with better thinking abilities
often find that the 'bravado' in such arguments is all YOURS.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Amil position was a johnie-come-lately.

Wrong again.

No, I am not.

Yes, you are. We have been over this before.

Unlike your replies, I will substantiate my position:

The 1st was decidedly not only millennial, but premillennial as even
amillenarians claim.

The 2nd C like the 1st C bears a sustained testimony to the
premillennial character of the early church. Honest amillenarians
claim no adherents whatever by name to their position in the 2nd C
except from within the allegorizing school of interpretation which
arose at the very close of the 2nd C. Justin Martyr (100-168) was
quite outspoken. He wrote: "But I and whatsoever Christians are
orthodox in all things do know that there will be a resurrection of the
flesh, and a thousand years in the city of Jerusalem, built adorned,
and enlarged, according as Ezekiel, Isaiah, and other prophets have
promised.'" Herzog's Cyclopaedia substantiates this by stating
that "Chiliasm constituted in the sec[ond] century so decidedly an
article of faith that Justin held it up as a criterion of perfect
orthodoxy."

The 3rd C had its own continued witness to premillennialism, as well.
Among those who can be cited are Cyprian (200-258), Commodian
(200-270), Nepos (230-280), Coracion (230-280), Victorinus
(240-303), Methodius (250-311), and Lactantius (240-330)...Nepos
early recognized the heretical tendencies of the Alexandrian school of
theology, which was the first effective opponent of premillennialism,
and he attacked it with vigor.

So it is as I said. It is you who is wrong and brissle at the truth
of it.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Steve Hayes
Most "dispensationalist" teaching is derived originally from Darby.

Not true.

Yes, true. But as always, as with any false teaching among Christians,
the supporters of 'dispensationalism' have cooked up an entire
revisionist history, to make it -SOUND- like their teaching is
ancient.

Post by Matthew Johnson
We now have a 500AD transcript of a letter which details the major
points contained within traditional dispensationalism. But as I
often note, every Christian is a dispensationalist. So the argument
is only as to the degree to which we divide the historic economies of
God and His people.

So why didn't you name the letter? Perhaps because when we examine it
more closely, we will find it does _not_ support you?

Also, you may "often note" it, but such notes are more 'often' than
notable. And I have already explained to you many times _why_ they
are so unconvincing; it is because you are abusing the terms
'dispensation' and 'dispensationalism', pretending that anyone who
believes in the existence of diverse 'dispensations' is therefore a
'dispensationalist'. But this is simply not true.

Post by Matthew Johnson
As Paul wrote: "that in the dispensation of the fulness of times",
indicating that he too taught dispensationalism.

Again, the mere use of the word 'dispensation' does NOT imply
'dispensationalism'. When will you give up this fraud, Loren?

Post by Matthew Johnson
Again, it is merely to what degree you wish to catologue the various
economies of God's relationship with His creation.

Post by Steve Hayes
A lot of people don't pick up the whole thing, but they do tend to
pickup the eschatology. A lot of charismatics, for example, don't
realise that the age of the Holy Spirit has passed,

No. Because the Spirit has been given as a "pledge" a down payment, a
contractual agreement "sealed to the day of redemption."

You misunderstood what Steve meant by "age of the Holy Spirit". He
could not have meant that we no longer _have_ the Holy Spirit, as this
is clearly refuted by the Pentecost services, which I assume he
participated in;)

Of _course_ we still have the pledge. But that is no grounds for
believing that the Spirit still expresses himself in the gifts listed
in 1 Cor 13:1-2.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Steve Hayes
and that speaking in tongues etc became obsolete once the
scriptural canon was complete, but they still hang on to the
premillennial "rapture" idea.

You're mixing apples and oranges. Very very few dispensational
theologians have such a view as this concerning the "sign" gifts.

No, it is you who is "mixing apples and oranges". Steve was not
_talking_ about your heroes, the "dispensational thologians"; he was
answering my question, which was about familiarity with
dispensationalism in South Africa. It is only to be expected that such
familiarity not exactly coincide with the teachings of your heroes.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
We now have a 500AD transcript of a letter which details the major
points contained within traditional dispensationalism. But as I
often note, every Christian is a dispensationalist. So the argument
is only as to the degree to which we divide the historic economies of
God and His people.

So why didn't you name the letter? Perhaps because when we examine it
more closely, we will find it does _not_ support you?

I have. Numerous times. Do I have to keep repeating myself? It is
much easier for you to pepper your debater with questions than to
actually submit anything substantiating your own position.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is a term that you yourself have used to describe the OC
eschatological position.

And when I used it, I used it ONLY with the same caveat; that it is a
horrible term for our theology.
But of course, you forgot this, didn't you?

No. I did not.

Then you have no excuse for continuing with the slur. Yet continue you
do.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
However, you have never provided another term.

So what? You would not have listened if I gave you one anhyway.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You are against millennialism therefore you are a-millennial.

Must you show off your ignorance this way? The 'a' prefix means
'without', NOT 'against'.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I don't care what term you wish to use, it is still the same
theological presuppositions.

And you have _never_ correctly stated what those were. All you ever
agree to state is your own prejudicial account of what they are, such
as when you say "against millennialism". No, Loren, we are against
_your_ _literal_ interpetation of the word 'millenium'. But such a
position is only inaccurately described by 'amillenial' or "against
millennialism", though the latter is less inaccurate.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com

But of course, you prefer the horrible term, since it gives you
an excuse for your even more horrible distortion of our
theology.

How so? You always make these broad enduendoes but you never seem
willing to reply honestly with any sort of substantiation.

This patently false, Loren. I _have_ replied with substantiation. Your
response was to _ignore_ it, and return to your shouting.

WHERE? Where was there ANY substantive, on the topic, rebuttal?

In many posts. I even gave you the message IDs for them before. But
you, of course, ignored the list, just as you _always_ ignore the
evidence against your fantastically absurd positions.

Face it, Loren. The real problem here is that you don't have a clue
what "substantive rebuttal" even is. No wonder you think you have done
it, when you have not, and you fail to see when others have done it.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You and I have a greater disparity of understanding that I have
thought of in the past if you think you are presenting substantive
rebuttals.

Then you don't think. And that is the problem. For the real disparity
is -- as I have told you often enough in the past -- that you don't
KNOW what a "substantive rebuttal" is. You have proved this in your
posts in these last two days by posting "substantive rebuttals" that
are overloaded with huge quotes of questionably authority and
relevancy. Who _cares_ what Avi Yonah writes? He is an open enemy of
Christianity -- as any Orthodox Jew must be.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
As I said before, compared to something I would submit to a theo
journal or for other publication, your replies in comparision
wouldn't make it in a high school debate club.

No, that is not what you said before. You cannot even quote your own
words right. No wonder you are incapable of reasonable discussion. No
wonder you are yourself guilty of the accusations you fling at others.

And don't think I haven't noticed your sly dishonesty here: you don't
actually admit it, but it is obvious that no such journal would accept
the writing in _your_ posts either.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
At least, it would be patently false, if there -were- such a thing
as 'enduendo'. But there isn't, so you are just spouting gibberish
again. No wonder people don't bother to refute you.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Amil position was a johnie-come-lately.

Wrong again.

No, I am not.

Yes, you are. We have been over this before.

And here is exactly what I was referring to in the above paragraph.
This is just about the extent of your "substantive" replies.

The reply was just as 'substantive' as your claim.

You really don't get it, do you? What you call "not substantive" is at
least as substantive as your own writing and usually more.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Amillennialism and its allegorical hermeneutic has been a subject of
discussion within the Orthodox Jewish theological camp.

So what? As I already pointed out to you often enough before: they are
the open _enemies_ of Christianity. As such their judgment on such a
Christian topic CANNOT be trusted.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I would suggest you read Michael Avi-Yonah and Zvi Baras, "Society
and Religion in the Second Temple Period" (Massada Publishing Ltd.,
1977), especially p. 185
It was inconceivable that the promises should not be fulfilled and
that the Kingdom of Heaven upon the earth should not arrive. All
Jewish groups believed this implicitly. The disagreement among them
concerned only the date of the fulfillment and the means of its
accomplishment. Whereas the Sadducees did not carry forward the
messianic hope of prophecy

What is this? Already, he has contradicted himself. First he says, all
Jewish groups do it, then he denies that the Sadducees did. But they
were a Jewish group too.

Of course, the only way he can escape contradiction here is to claim
that the Sadducees were not even really Jewish. But this is _so_
prejudicial. Or is this why you like using his quotes? Because he
shares your prediliction for prejudice?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
...Even Christianity, essentially messianic...is the product of the
great messianic promises. By reason of foreign influence, however, it
sought the messianic Kingdom of God in a way other than that of
Judaism. While Jewish messianism is firmly rooted in this world, in
earthly life, even in the "new world" of the days of the Messiah,
Christian messianism is a "kingdom not of this world."
end quote.

And didn't you notice, however, how Yonah contradicts you here? He
says Christian messianism is a kindgom NOT of this world, but you are
striving mightily to bury this fact, and make it just as wordly as in
Judaism.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Note the statement about "foreign influence". This is a clear
reference to the pagan allegorical school of interpretation which
basically rejected by nearly all orthodox Jewish scholars. The book
further elaborates on the "Greek element" [allegorical

Now this is where you surprise me, Loren. With your irrational love
for all things Jewish, you should have known what he was referring
to. But you did not.

It is _standard_ among Orthodox Jews to believe that this "foreign
influence" goes _far_ beyond the "pagan allegorical school of
interpretation". Why, it is _standard_ among them to believe that even
the vital Christian dogma of the Virgin Birth is a pagan
import. plagiarized from the Mystery Religions with their own stories
of miraculous births of gods, demigods or heroes from mortal women.

This, BTW, is a good example of why these people deserver NO
credibility at all. Yet you give such bitter enemies of Christianity
your faith.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This renewed messianic idea, envisioned by the author of the Book of
Daniel, was to be echoed in its essential thrust in the literature
that took its clue from it. Its influence on Christianity is
unmistakable. Once Christianity, however, introduced a Greek element
into Jewish monotheism it changed the basic concept of the Kingdom of
Heaven which it had borrowed from Judaism (p159).
end quote
This is an incredible statement which reveals that Avi-Yonah clearly
understood the allegorical influence that makes "the political"
difference between Amillennial Christian interpretation and Judaism..

No, Loren, there is nothing 'incredible' about it. What is incredible
is how you have changed his words and overlooked his great differences
with you in order to see 'evidence' of your own position.

But of course, such behavior is only to be expected out of someone who
is so determined never to progress beyond the 'understanding' of
Christianity you had when you were six years old.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
We now have a 500AD transcript of a letter which details the major
points contained within traditional dispensationalism. But as I
often note, every Christian is a dispensationalist. So the argument
is only as to the degree to which we divide the historic economies of
God and His people.

So why didn't you name the letter? Perhaps because when we examine it
more closely, we will find it does _not_ support you?

I have. Numerous times. Do I have to keep repeating myself?

No. You just have to get it right once. But you never do.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is
much easier for you to pepper your debater with questions than to
actually submit anything substantiating your own position.

Once more, you have described your own bad practice better than you have
described anyone elses.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You like to take pot shots at dispensationalism and millennialism,
but you never present anything pro or con to relevant points. Why is
that?

Because dividing into "pro or con" is a really poor way to approach
any topic. If you had gone to a -respectable- seminary AND done well
there, you would know this. NO respectable seminary teaches a "pro and
con" system of hermeneutics!

Oh! I guess you decide what is "respectable" and what is not. Of
every seminary I've been in relationship, either directly or indirectly
through friends, acquaintences, and journals, all have a doctrinal
statement and all require at least one -college level- paper to be
written concerning that statement, both from the pro and the con
perspective. Heck, even in bible school, it was required to write
papers, pro & con for transubstantiation and pro & con for
consubstantiation. Even at that entry level, we are taught to develope
a studied appreciatation of doctrinal issue from both sides of the
table.

BTW, "dispensationlism and millennialism" are not "system of
hermeneutics." They certainly have a defined hermeneutic -the
historical/grammatical model- but it is wrong to phrase you objection
as such. Again, you are shooting from the hip and I hate to be the one
who has to constantly point it out to you, but you're shooting blanks.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is at least 200 years after Millennialism.

No, that is not true.

Both Jewish and early Christian sources are on my side.

So you love to repeat. But you always fall short when it comes to evidence.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Also, though it does have the greater following, it has much less
scriptural support. It absolutely requires the allegorical
methodology of interpretation.

The "allegorical methodology" is required anyway, despite all your
strenuous attempts to deny it. So you have no case here.

The allegorical methodology, though used by some Jewish scholars,
(but definitely NOT orthodox Jewish scholars), is a pagan invention
is one will but do a little linquistic study.

What? Philo not orthodox? Where did you get this idea? And where is
this mythical link between "linguistic study" and "allegorical
metholdology"?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But all that aside for the moment. Dispensationalism and
Millennialism are all grounded within the covenants.

No, they are not. You are simply repeating as if proved the very
statement that is under contention.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And the very nature of a
covenant is that they must be understood by all parties concerned.

Then I guess you are not party to any of them.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Linquistically, the language employed is not extra ordinary, let alone
allegorical.

You miss the point. You _cannot_ claim that simply because it is "not
extra ordinary[sic]", it is not allegorical.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
They are common in their useage so that the ideas
intended within the contract may be accurately expressed and commonly
understood.

This sounds all very nice, but the Orthodox Jews you love to quote
will NOT agree with your so-called "common understanding" of the
covenant with Abraham.

You _should_ see this as weakening your position, and even fatally
so. But no doubt you will find excuses to avoid seeing this.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
As far as the Kingdom is concerned, even Mary interpreted
the angel's announcement of it literally.

You don't know that.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This normal human
government. Who signs on the dotted line of a business agreement
thinking later that they have some right to interpret it allegorically.

You miss the point again.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
NO ONE does that.

But this is _entirely_ irrelevant. A Biblical Covenant is NOT a
business agreement, despite a _few_ similarities.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
When looking for loop-holes in contracts, the
observations and objections are ALWAYS dealt with from a literal
perspective. No law school in the world teaches contract law with any
sort of non-verifiable, grammatically real and substantial meaning. So
why should anyone think that the covenants made by God are somehow
magically made to be understood allegorically.

First of all, nobody every claimed they were all allegorical. Not even
that any one of them should be interpreted entirely allegorically. But
your analogy with a business contract is a FALSE analogy. For as Paul
explained so clearly in Romans, even the Covenant with Abraham had a
fulfillment very different from what Abraham could have reasonably
expected. He was expecting that the "many nations (Rom 4:17)" would
all be Isaac's carnal descendants, as the Orthodox Jews you love to
quote would tell you.

But what God gave was far greater: all the sons _by faith_ are
Abraham's seed.

How can you fail to see that this is allegorical? Again: if you would
actually _listen_ to what the Jews you cite say, you would realize
that they _deny_ that this Covenant can concern us: according to the
literal interpretation, it can only apply to Jews. But Paul tells us
it applies to ALL CHristians, not just Jewish-Christians (Gal 3:29).

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This is a man-made invention.

Only if Romans and Galatians are "man-made inventions".

[snip[

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Now, you state that you provide substantial analysis of points of
debate -here is your chance to show yourself true.

You don't know what you are talking about. I have already done this
many times. Your response _every_ single time was dishonesty,
pretending I had not. I have no doubt you will do it again this time.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Explain to us all, using plain grammatical sense, why anyone should
interpret the Covenants allegorically?

You don't _recognize_ "plain grammatical sense". If you did, you would
admit that your accusations are completely groundless. If you did, you
would recognize that the Archbishop's accusations against Israel are
_completely_ justified.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
That, BTW, is yet another reason why your entire approach to Biblical
intepretation is so seriously broken: without relying on Tradition, we
really do NOT know how these verses were interpreted in the early
years.

There is "Tradition" and then there is "tradition."

True. But you have _never_ given evidence that you understand the
distinction.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Either way, both stand under the authority of Scripture.

No. Scripture IS part of Tradition. Without Tradition, you do not even
have a way to know which _books_ belong in Scripture.

In fact, Loren, you really _don't_ know which books belong there. For
you have got the list wrong. You deny books that Paul assumed his
readers knew.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Any science or tradition MUST conform to what scriptures states or it
is to be recognized as false.

If only you really believed this! Then you would recognize that Sola
Scriptura itself is NEVER taught by Scripture.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
But the development of history itself made it clear that the
symbolic interpretation of Revelations's "thousand years" had to
be the only correct one.

Wrong again.

No, not even once. Much less 'again'.

Both the Davidic throne and the Davidic Kingdom are to be understood
*literally,* or the promises which flow out from them are invalidated
as well.

If you really believed this, and if you really believed your own pleas
for "literal interpretation" then you would admit that the Davidic
Kingdom is OVER. Otherwise, how do you recognize that the Davidic
Kingdom is continued in the Kingship of Christ, which continues
unbroken to this day?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
That the Covenants are confirmed by an oath of God, they
cannot be broken or altered in any way.

Nobody ever said that they were. You are shadow-boxing.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Covenants, by their very nature, must make grammatical sense.

Not _literal_ "grammatical sense". Ever hear of treaties with the
clause "until rivers cease to flow"?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And if the Divine impression granted David be erroneous, then is
necessarily disparaging to his prophetic office.

But you don't know that that "Divine impression" even IS. If you did,

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Substantiating the literal interpretation is
Solomon's claim that the covenant was fulfilled in himself but only in
so far that he too, as David's son, sat on David's throne. Your
position, like others, wrongfully infer that the entire promise is
conditional over against the most express declaration to the contrary
as to the One, the pre-eminent Seed.
Your predisposition to disavow the unconditional nature of the
covenants has far and wide implications, not the least of which concern
the Messiah and His Kingdom included.

For David knew, when the Psalms referred to Christ. But you do
not. You prefer to prepare yourself to receive the anti-christ and
call him 'christ'.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
The literal interpretation fits perfectly with a literal
interpretation of not only NT prophecy, but OT prophecy as well.

No, it does not, and that is why you invent reasons for certainty and
then cover up the uncertainties with snake oil.

Only the literal interpretation allows a common and sensible
understanding of the promises involved in each.

No, _only a true hermeneutic, one that allows intepretation to be
literal when it should be, and non-literal when it should be, will
"allow a common and sensible understanding of the promises involved in
each".

But you always turn your nose up at at true hermeneutic, prefering
excuses that will allow you to rationalize your Judaizing of
Christianity.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
BTW: Loren, if "literal interpretation of prophecy" were the only way,
then you would have GREAT trouble with Eze 26:7. For Nebuchadnezzar
never _did_ take Tyre, much less destroy the walls. Only Alexander the
Great achieved that.
That is why I have been telling you: your insistence on only
literal interpretation of prophecy is UNACCEPTABLE.

I will answer but briefly, though it will serve as an example for
this NG to understand that my answers are substantiating even when
you pull these tired, old arguments out for rehashing.

No, it will do no such thing. For you have failed again, just as I
expected you would.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Ezek 26:7-12 details certain predictions concerning the wealthy city
Tyrus.

In English, the name of the city is TYRE, not 'Tyrus'.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
In vs. 7-11 it states how Nebuchadnezzar would come and destroy the
city. At the 12th verse the person changes and it says "Ezek. 26:12
"Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your
merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses,
and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the
water." [NASB]

And you depart from your own beloved "grammatical/literal principles"
with your forced interpretation of who 'they' are.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The first verses were literally fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar within a
very few years after this prophecy was given.

Not true. This NEVER HAPPENED. The walls of Tyre remained unbreached
until Alexander the Great. How can you claim the city was destroyed
when Nebuchadnezzar at best only wore them down into surrendering? And
some historians deny he did even this. He _certainly_ did NOT destroy
the city,, he never slaughtered the whole population, he never
breached its walls, he never took down its towers. Only Alexander
could accomplish that.

The prophecy was NOT FULFILLED. The prophet himself _admits_ this in
Eze 29:18, when he says:

Begin quote-------------
"Son of man, Nebuchadrez'zar king of Babylon made his army labor hard
against Tyre; every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed
bare; YET NEITHER HE NOR HIS ARMY GOT ANYTHING FROM TYRE TO PAY FOR
THE LABOR THAT HE HAD PERFORMED AGAINST IT. (Eze 29:18 RSVA)
End quote-----------

If he had _taken_ it, the plunder would have paid for it. The prophet
says they got no pay. THEREFORE HE DID NOT TAKE IT, despite what Budge
says.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
In fact, if you had been careful and done a little study on the
interpretive history of this passage,

Now this is comical! The man who can't understand the difference
between 'capture' and 'destroy' is telling _me_ to be careful!

Post by l***@hotmail.com
the nearness of time has caused some to doubt that it was prediction
at all and not simply a historical accounting passed off as a
prophetic marvel. However, this need not be discussed here.

You are right for the wrong reason: it need not be discussed AT
ALL. It is too silly.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The last phrase was not fulfilled at all, "and it seemed most
improbable it ever would be. What could the words mean?

They certainly can't mean what _you_ say.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Nebuchadnezzar had taken a full vengeance,

No, he did not. He gave up after a 13-year siege and went on to Egypt.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
but had never thought of this.... Who then would be found to wreak
such unheard-of vengeance upon the unoffending ruins?"[Urquhart: The
Wonders of Prophecy, p. 16] . For over 240 yrs no fulfillment was
seen.

And no wonder, since it was too late once Nebuchadnezzar died.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Then, as you rightly noted, Alexander appeared and in his
all-conquering career came to the shores where Tyrus had stood.

What are you talking about? "Had stood"? Tyre was STILL STANDING.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And "the rest is history" as they say, and against your
predisposition, it was fulfilled literally.

No, trying to say it was fulfilled by Alexander is the _height_ of
absurdity. According to your own hermeneutic, one must stick to
grammatical and literal principles. And by those principles, it is
UNAVOIDABLE that we conclude that the verses predict that
NEBUCHADNEZZAR will do these things.

Look at the verses themselves:
Begin quote--------

"For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the
north Nebuchadrez'zar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and
chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers. HE will slay
with the sword your daughters on the mainland; he will set up a siege
wall against you, and throw up a mound against you, and raise a roof
of shields against you. HE will direct the shock of his battering rams
against your walls, and with his axes HE will break down your
towers. His horses will be so many that their dust will cover you;
your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen and wagons and
chariots, when HE enters your gates as one enters a city which has
been breached. With the hoofs of his horses HE will trample all your
streets; HE will slay your people with the sword; and your mighty
pillars will fall to the ground. They will make a spoil of your riches
and a prey of your merchandise; they will break down your walls and
destroy your pleasant houses; your stones and timber and soil they
will cast into the midst of the waters. (Eze 26:7-12 RSVA)


End quote-----------

To show that your beloved grammatical principles insist that it be
_Nebuchadnezzar_ who does all this, I have put pronouns that must
refer to him in ALL CAPS. Nebuchadnezzare NEVER "slayed all Tyre's
people with the sword".

Besides: following the same grammatical/literal rules, who must the
'they' refer to? It CANNOT refer to someone _else's_ troops from
hundreds of years later! It MUST refer to NECUCHADNEZZAR'S troops, the
"horsemen and wagons and chariots" mentioned in v10. But they NEVER
broke down Tyre's walls.

This prophecy was unfulfilled, as the prophet himself later admits.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Nice little end around, Matthew, but it is an old play which never
works.

No, it works quite well. You attempt to explain it away is what
fails. And it fails BADLY.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is a term that you yourself have used to describe the OC
eschatological position.

And when I used it, I used it ONLY with the same caveat; that it is a
horrible term for our theology.
But of course, you forgot this, didn't you?

No. I did not.

Then you have no excuse for continuing with the slur. Yet continue you
do.

Matthew, how is one to have any sense of discussion with you? I read
through this exchange and your response is circular and juvenile
logically. Now I'm sure you will take that as a personal affront, but
that is neither my tone nor my intent. Debating with you somehow
always seems to end up arguing over personality or reference but never
debating the principle. My wife commented yesterday after having
lunch with two other couples, that she noticed that I have a habit of
deferring to others except when the conversation directs itself toward
doctrinal matters. Then I become quite apologetic in nature.

As the book title admits, "Doctrine Divides." And the division between
what you perceive to be the Truth and what I perceive to be the Truth
starts exactly where it should start -in the true interpretation of
Genesis. You do not perceive man falling into what Calvinist have
termed, "total depravity," the definition of which is that man isn't
as bad as he could be, rather, he is as bad as he need be. I interpret
the opening chapters literally. When Adam fell he was ushered out of
the garden for one specific reason, given to us in Gen. 3:22

Quote:

Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us,
knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take
also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--
end quote NASB

Now if man wasn't totally depraved, then partaking of the tree of life
would not have been such a big deal. For as you would have us believe,
man isn't dead, he's merely wounded. And though Adam had not only eat
the fruit of the tree, but the entire tree itself (to use Calvin's
analogy) it would not have regained him what he had lost. God issued
Adam and Eve out of the garden because He did not want them sealed in
their depravity. Salvation would have been lost to them.

So you and I are at odds right out of the gate. This doctrine is
fundamental to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is fundamental to Paul's
Gospel as written of in Romans, Galations, and certainly in Ephesians.


But in the response above, you cannot even be even handed in your use
of "logic" if one would even grant what you wrote as being logical at
all. You don't like the term, amillennial, and yet you provide no
other comparable term to suppliment it. Then you would accuse me of
slurring your precept because I use the term that has been used for
nearly two millennia. You advocate that there is no literal 1000 yr
kingdom where Christ rules the nations from the throne of David in
Jerusalem. You therefore stand *against* the millennial teaching that
have been taught by the Church since its very conception. And in that
you stand *againt* it, like it or not, you are *a*millennial.

You are illogical, unfair, and historically inaccurate.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson
Must you show off your ignorance this way? The 'a' prefix means
'without', NOT 'against'.

Then perhaps you would care to explain how they are qualifiably
different.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I don't care what term you wish to use, it is still the same
theological presuppositions.

And you have _never_ correctly stated what those were. All you ever
agree to state is your own prejudicial account of what they are, such
as when you say "against millennialism". No, Loren, we are against
_your_ _literal_ interpetation of the word 'millenium'. But such a
position is only inaccurately described by 'amillenial' or "against
millennialism", though the latter is less inaccurate.

And once again, though you would claim this as a substantiated
rebuttal, there is no substantial information provided. You debate
semantics, not substance. The debate IS concerning the literal
interpretation and historic position of 1) a literal kingdom on earth
via the promises/covenants made with Israel, and 2) that kingdom being
literally 1000 years in longevity. This has been the debate since very
late in the 2nd century. So you are stepping outside the historic
bounds of the debate. You are against a literal 1000 yr kingdom where
the Messiah, the "Lion of Judah" rules in Jerusalem, where the nations
of the world must journey to once a year or suffer for it, where the
lamb lies down with the lion, where Satan is held captive (certainly
you aren't going to argue he is being held captive in the present
dispensation, are you?) till the end where he is once again allowed to
lead astray the nations into open rebellion against Christ's rule.

On this last point, you miss the meaning of it because you refuse the
doctrine of total depravity which is taught to us from Gen 3 till then.
Why have their been these different dispensations, even as scripture
itself terms them? It is because it reveals that any creature which
stands other than totally dependent on God, stands independent from
Him. And no matter what the enviornment, whether it be without food
and water in the wilderness, fed and watered by the very hand of God,
or whether it be with the blessings mentioned in Deut 8, whether it be
free from the law or under the law, whether it be with God resting upon
men or dwelling within them, whether He be immediately present or
withdrawn, no matter what, man stand against God when he is left to
himself. The Millennium is the capital of illustrative revelation of
the depravity of men. Even with Christ Himself ruling upon earth, even
with creation at peace with itself, where the child can play with the
viper, even with peace on earth because the LION of Judah rules, none
of this changes anything. Unless God regenerates the heart of man, he
cannot and will not submit himself to Him.

God's design of the ages has purpose. You refuse to grant to HIm the
purpose which He has revealed to us in very common terms and
illustrations. Therefore whether it be expressed "amillennialism" or
"antimillennialsim", when thrown in the kettle and boiled down, they
are both elementally the same thing.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
WHERE? Where was there ANY substantive, on the topic, rebuttal?

In many posts. I even gave you the message IDs for them before. But
you, of course, ignored the list, just as you _always_ ignore the
evidence against your fantastically absurd positions.

As I've always noted, I don't do links. This forum isn't about linking
to what someone else has summerized. It is about the individual
responder putting into his own words, what he believes to be true and
then defending it.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Amil position was a johnie-come-lately.

Wrong again.

No, I am not.

Yes, you are. We have been over this before.

And here is exactly what I was referring to in the above paragraph.
This is just about the extent of your "substantive" replies.

The reply was just as 'substantive' as your claim.

And you, who is so fast with your howling noise about "nettique", do
not bother to use the curtosy of a simple, ">SNIP".

Post by Matthew Johnson
You really don't get it, do you? What you call "not substantive" is at
least as substantive as your own writing and usually more.

Is this the best you can do, Matthew? Is this a substantiating
rebuttal? Is what you are here providing to us an illustration of a
substantial reply?

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Amillennialism and its allegorical hermeneutic has been a subject of
discussion within the Orthodox Jewish theological camp.

So what? As I already pointed out to you often enough before: they are
the open _enemies_ of Christianity. As such their judgment on such a
Christian topic CANNOT be trusted.

It was a valid reference. When one prepares a paper, he studies the
historical arguments, the historical positions, and provides either a
catalogue of them or references quoting them.

Acts 2:42 And they were continually devoting themselves to the
apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to
prayer.

"The Apostles' teaching". Now just which one of the Apostles were not
Orthodox Jews? Which one of them did not believing in a literal
Messiah and a literal Messianic Kingdom on earth? Which of them
followed and taught the allegorical school of interpretation? This is
hardly off the topic. You claim this great dogma concerning tradition
but when it stands against you, you cast it off like Adam faulting Eve.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I would suggest you read Michael Avi-Yonah and Zvi Baras, "Society
and Religion in the Second Temple Period" (Massada Publishing Ltd.,
1977), especially p. 185
It was inconceivable that the promises should not be fulfilled and
that the Kingdom of Heaven upon the earth should not arrive. All
Jewish groups believed this implicitly. The disagreement among them
concerned only the date of the fulfillment and the means of its
accomplishment. Whereas the Sadducees did not carry forward the
messianic hope of prophecy

What is this? Already, he has contradicted himself. First he says, all
Jewish groups do it, then he denies that the Sadducees did. But they
were a Jewish group too.

"All", as you should know by now because of your envied expertise on
Paul's epistle to the Romans, is always interpreted according to the
context. The context here was no different than what was illustrated
in John 4. Did not the woman "state, You, being a Jew," make such a
distinction?

Post by Matthew Johnson
Of course, the only way he can escape contradiction here is to claim
that the Sadducees were not even really Jewish.

Then what about the Samaritans? Also, did not Christ Himself discount
the Sadducees? Though He debated the Pharisees, He did not discount
their pursuit for orthodoxy. I feel that the Gospel's reveal that
there was indeed a distinction. Again, even history itself marks the
distinction.

Post by Matthew Johnson
But this is _so_
prejudicial. Or is this why you like using his quotes? Because he
shares your prediliction for prejudice?

Again, IS THIS an illustration of substantive rebuttal? All you have
done is deny, deny, deny. You've added nothing. You are not
"substantially" different than Brenda in that all you have offered is
an opinion. As I said, your sort of replies are not even upto snuff to
make it in a high school debate.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
...Even Christianity, essentially messianic...is the product of the
great messianic promises. By reason of foreign influence, however, it
sought the messianic Kingdom of God in a way other than that of
Judaism. While Jewish messianism is firmly rooted in this world, in
earthly life, even in the "new world" of the days of the Messiah,
Christian messianism is a "kingdom not of this world."
end quote.

And didn't you notice, however, how Yonah contradicts you here? He
says Christian messianism is a kindgom NOT of this world, but you are
striving mightily to bury this fact, and make it just as wordly as in
Judaism.

No, he is stating it accurately. Historically, the literal camp has
taught that the Kingdom on earth was primarily Jewish in nature while
the Kingdom hope of the Church has been primarily heavenly in nature.
It is the Jehovah (false) Witnesses and other such heretical cults who
fail to make the distinction. As I stated from the outset, you once
stayed out of eschatological debates because, as you admitted, the OC
really does teach or pursue eschatological matters. I would suggest
you become a bit more studied in eschatological schools of thought
before you draw uninformed conclusions such as you have done above and
then press them as binding.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Note the statement about "foreign influence". This is a clear
reference to the pagan allegorical school of interpretation which
basically rejected by nearly all orthodox Jewish scholars. The book
further elaborates on the "Greek element" [allegorical

Now this is where you surprise me, Loren. With your irrational love
for all things Jewish, you should have known what he was referring
to. But you did not.
It is _standard_ among Orthodox Jews to believe that this "foreign
influence" goes _far_ beyond the "pagan allegorical school of
interpretation". Why, it is _standard_ among them to believe that even
the vital Christian dogma of the Virgin Birth is a pagan
import. plagiarized from the Mystery Religions with their own stories
of miraculous births of gods, demigods or heroes from mortal women.

But now you have wandered outside of the Orthodox Jewish position. We
were talking about apples but you have brought in oranges.

Post by Matthew Johnson
This, BTW, is a good example of why these people deserver NO
credibility at all. Yet you give such bitter enemies of Christianity
your faith.

Funny, in all my Jewish confrontations and debates and relationships,
I've never, ever encountered "bitter enemies." Perhaps this is because
I am recognized as "evangelical" in nature. Some of my very bestest
friends over the years, have been Jews. Long have been our
discussions, but never "bitter". You really don't get out much, do
you? When was the last time you ever did any curb side evangelism,
especially in a Jewish community. The CJF has a course, JET, short
for "Jewish Evangelism Training". It is a very intense 10 day course.
I can put you in touch with them if you wish.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This renewed messianic idea, envisioned by the author of the Book of
Daniel, was to be echoed in its essential thrust in the literature
that took its clue from it. Its influence on Christianity is
unmistakable. Once Christianity, however, introduced a Greek element
into Jewish monotheism it changed the basic concept of the Kingdom of
Heaven which it had borrowed from Judaism (p159).
end quote
This is an incredible statement which reveals that Avi-Yonah clearly
understood the allegorical influence that makes "the political"
difference between Amillennial Christian interpretation and Judaism..

No, Loren, there is nothing 'incredible' about it. What is incredible
is how you have changed his words and overlooked his great differences
with you in order to see 'evidence' of your own position.

No, the whole context was dealing with Allegorical Interpretation. In
that you have over looked the context, something which you do all too
frequently, you have arrived at a totally false conclusion.

Post by Matthew Johnson
But of course, such behavior is only to be expected out of someone who
is so determined never to progress beyond the 'understanding' of
Christianity you had when you were six years old.

Ah! Is this the substantive reply you would have us believe you are
capable of? Again I ask, does the nature of "six years old" reflect
Spiritual fruit?

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson
What? Philo not orthodox? Where did you get this idea? And where is
this mythical link between "linguistic study" and "allegorical
metholdology"?

You are either unlearned or dishonest as to the history of allegorical
interpretation. You believe it originated with Philo?

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But all that aside for the moment. Dispensationalism and
Millennialism are all grounded within the covenants.

No, they are not. You are simply repeating as if proved the very
statement that is under contention.

This is MY school, MY position. Do you think I don't know what
Dispensationism holds and teaches? You think you are the better
informed, the more studied, in Dispensationism? You are speaking of
things you are unknowledgeable of. What I stated above is a completely
accurate statement and assessment.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And the very nature of a
covenant is that they must be understood by all parties concerned.

Then I guess you are not party to any of them.

More belittling darts. Where is your "substantive" reply?

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Linquistically, the language employed is not extra ordinary, let alone
allegorical.

You miss the point. You _cannot_ claim that simply because it is "not
extra ordinary[sic]", it is not allegorical.

But THAT, my dear boy, is the presumptive intent of requiring
allegorical methods of interpretation. You would have us believe that
one must be of extra ordinary intelligence to interpret the meaning of
God's revelation. That would make about 99% of the population of the
world incapable of understanding the Gospel. Because, as you maintain,
the "husk" isn't the real or true meaning. Oh no, like the Gnostic, it
is the "kernal" or the hidden truth. It is the truth hidden within
which must be divined by the intelligencia, the ecclessia, by
allegorical methods which are incapable of being taught to the
commoner.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
They are common in their useage so that the ideas
intended within the contract may be accurately expressed and commonly
understood.

This sounds all very nice, but the Orthodox Jews you love to quote
will NOT agree with your so-called "common understanding" of the
covenant with Abraham.

Again, when was the last time you talked with an Orthodox Jew about
such things personally? I work with an OJ, though now we are on
differnt shifts, and this was his understanding as well. BTW, he was
discipled until the age of 21 when he decided to give up his pursuit of
being a Rabbi. His name is Eldad.

Post by Matthew Johnson
You _should_ see this as weakening your position, and even fatally
so. But no doubt you will find excuses to avoid seeing this.

More accusation. More lack of any sort of substantiated rebuttal.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
As far as the Kingdom is concerned, even Mary interpreted
the angel's announcement of it literally.

You don't know that.

Now this can only reveal the hardness of your heart. Wow. You've out
done yourself here! And you have even, in the past, defended
Marionism. You are quite remarkable, Matthew.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This normal human
government. Who signs on the dotted line of a business agreement
thinking later that they have some right to interpret it allegorically.

You miss the point again.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
NO ONE does that.

But this is _entirely_ irrelevant. A Biblical Covenant is NOT a
business agreement, despite a _few_ similarities.

Really? If it isn't a contractual agreement, then why did Judiasm look
for a literal fulfillment of the Messianic promise, specifically
through the lineage of David. There were so many specific prophecies
concerning the Messiah, all having their basis rooted in a literal
interpretation of the covenants, of which the Gospel record testifies
by means of the religious leaders debate with Jesus. I can point to
such encounters as attributing to a literal methodology. Now instead
of just denying that point, why not point us to a Gospel passage where
the allegorical method of interpretation is clearly represented? IF
the allegorical method is the prescribed method of interpretation, then
there it should be a simple task of pulling up testimonial encounter
after testimonial encounter or out right specificity to the fact in
either OT or NT.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
When looking for loop-holes in contracts, the
observations and objections are ALWAYS dealt with from a literal
perspective. No law school in the world teaches contract law with any
sort of non-verifiable, grammatically real and substantial meaning. So
why should anyone think that the covenants made by God are somehow
magically made to be understood allegorically.

First of all, nobody every claimed they were all allegorical. Not even
that any one of them should be interpreted entirely allegorically. But
your analogy with a business contract is a FALSE analogy. For as Paul
explained so clearly in Romans, even the Covenant with Abraham had a
fulfillment very different from what Abraham could have reasonably
expected.

No, that was not allegorical. Rather, Paul was teaching that aside
from the plain, common, literal, historical understanding, their was
hid a yet to be revealed addition to the covenant. The provision was
made as Gen 12:3 states and as Paul submits in Galatians, but that is
not, as you say, provided by allegorical methodology, but by the
revelation of the "mystery" of the Church.

Post by Matthew Johnson
He was expecting that the "many nations (Rom 4:17)" would
all be Isaac's carnal descendants, as the Orthodox Jews you love to
quote would tell you.

Now you are the one who is arguing from presupposition. "Calls into
being THAT WHICH DID NOT EXIST." This is the mystery element of the
Church. This is the Gentile nations whom Paul described as only having
an existence outside of the covenants (Eph 2). But "in the fullness of
times" (dispensations), it was revealed that Gentiles were to be
called into the kingdom as well. There is no allegorical methodology
employed here. This does not provide a defense for your position.

Post by Matthew Johnson
But what God gave was far greater: all the sons _by faith_ are
Abraham's seed.

Oh, do we need to go down this road again as to the efficient cause,
the instrumental cause, formal cause, etc? Faith has always been
required. And Gentiles could become proselytes, but they were never
called Jews or ever thought of as having inheritance in the covenants.
The "mystery" was that the Gentiles were to be grafted in -for a time,
until the time of the Gentiles was full.

Post by Matthew Johnson
How can you fail to see that this is allegorical?

How can you fail to see that it isn't allegorical but rather the
mystery element of the Church? It's not that there was no previous
revelation concerning the Gentiles, rather, it was their inclusion
within *certain* aspects of the covenants. Paul does not teach in
Galatians that all the covenants have been inherited by the Church or
that the Church has replaced the elect nation of Israel.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Again: if you would
actually _listen_ to what the Jews you cite say, you would realize
that they _deny_ that this Covenant can concern us: according to the
literal interpretation, it can only apply to Jews. But Paul tells us
it applies to ALL CHristians, not just Jewish-Christians (Gal 3:29).

His teaching is in accordance with Gen 12:3. But the Gentiles have no
part in Gen 12:1-2 or in 2 Sam 7: 7:10-16 or with Deut 30:1-10 or Ex
19:5ff. There is even debate as to whether or not the New Covenant of
Jere 31 is the new covenant of the Church. The "New Covenant" refered
to in Hebrews is contextually only speaking to Jews. Certainly the
warnings of Hebrews are not in reference to Gentiles returning to
sacrifices in the Jewish temple.

I do not debate your point about Gal speaking with the mind of Gentile
inclusion. However, it is a very different thing to push that to
equate TOTAL inheritance. Again, we've been over this before.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This is a man-made invention.

Only if Romans and Galatians are "man-made inventions".

Only if you read it into the text. The "Israel of God" is NOT the
Church, but rather the believing Jewish remnant as compared with 1 Cor
10:32.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Now, you state that you provide substantial analysis of points of
debate -here is your chance to show yourself true.

You don't know what you are talking about. I have already done this
many times. Your response _every_ single time was dishonesty,
pretending I had not. I have no doubt you will do it again this time.

Blah, bla blah, bla blah, blah. WHERE'S THE BEEF? Where is there any
substantiation of what you have presented in this post? You have
merely presented a thesis. There is NO substantiation of it.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Explain to us all, using plain grammatical sense, why anyone should
interpret the Covenants allegorically?

You don't _recognize_ "plain grammatical sense". If you did, you would
admit that your accusations are completely groundless. If you did, you
would recognize that the Archbishop's accusations against Israel are
_completely_ justified.

This is it? This is your "substantiation" of allegorical
interpretation? I can get a better response from a Protestant Covenant
theologian than anything you have so far submitted. You can't even
maintain the point.

Where, Matthew, was there any worthy substantiation of the allegorical
methodology in this post. Anything at all positive in the defense
thereof? You made an allegation, but you did not defend it. You
merely driveled, "How can you not see it" as if the defense of your
position rested upon my divining the ethreal. Come on, Matthew.
Present me with a positive defense of allegorical interpretation of

Post by Matthew Johnson
What? Philo not orthodox? Where did you get this idea? And where is
this mythical link between "linguistic study" and "allegorical
metholdology"?

You are either unlearned or dishonest as to the history of allegorical
interpretation. You believe it originated with Philo?

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But all that aside for the moment. Dispensationalism and
Millennialism are all grounded within the covenants.

No, they are not. You are simply repeating as if proved the very
statement that is under contention.

This is MY school, MY position. Do you think I don't know what
Dispensationism holds and teaches? You think you are the better
informed, the more studied, in Dispensationism? You are speaking of
things you are unknowledgeable of. What I stated above is a completely
accurate statement and assessment.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And the very nature of a
covenant is that they must be understood by all parties concerned.

Then I guess you are not party to any of them.

More belittling darts. Where is your "substantive" reply?

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Linquistically, the language employed is not extra ordinary, let alone
allegorical.

You miss the point. You _cannot_ claim that simply because it is "not
extra ordinary[sic]", it is not allegorical.

But THAT, my dear boy, is the presumptive intent of requiring
allegorical methods of interpretation. You would have us believe that
one must be of extra ordinary intelligence to interpret the meaning of
God's revelation. That would make about 99% of the population of the
world incapable of understanding the Gospel. Because, as you maintain,
the "husk" isn't the real or true meaning. Oh no, like the Gnostic, it
is the "kernal" or the hidden truth. It is the truth hidden within
which must be divined by the intelligencia, the ecclessia, by
allegorical methods which are incapable of being taught to the
commoner.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
They are common in their useage so that the ideas
intended within the contract may be accurately expressed and commonly
understood.

This sounds all very nice, but the Orthodox Jews you love to quote
will NOT agree with your so-called "common understanding" of the
covenant with Abraham.

Again, when was the last time you talked with an Orthodox Jew about
such things personally? I work with an OJ, though now we are on
differnt shifts, and this was his understanding as well. BTW, he was
discipled until the age of 21 when he decided to give up his pursuit of
being a Rabbi. His name is Eldad.

Post by Matthew Johnson
You _should_ see this as weakening your position, and even fatally
so. But no doubt you will find excuses to avoid seeing this.

More accusation. More lack of any sort of substantiated rebuttal.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
As far as the Kingdom is concerned, even Mary interpreted
the angel's announcement of it literally.

You don't know that.

Now this can only reveal the hardness of your heart. Wow. You've out
done yourself here! And you have even, in the past, defended
Marionism. You are quite remarkable, Matthew.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This normal human
government. Who signs on the dotted line of a business agreement
thinking later that they have some right to interpret it allegorically.

You miss the point again.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
NO ONE does that.

But this is _entirely_ irrelevant. A Biblical Covenant is NOT a
business agreement, despite a _few_ similarities.

Really? If it isn't a contractual agreement, then why did Judiasm look
for a literal fulfillment of the Messianic promise, specifically
through the lineage of David. There were so many specific prophecies
concerning the Messiah, all having their basis rooted in a literal
interpretation of the covenants, of which the Gospel record testifies
by means of the religious leaders debate with Jesus. I can point to
such encounters as attributing to a literal methodology. Now instead
of just denying that point, why not point us to a Gospel passage where
the allegorical method of interpretation is clearly represented? IF
the allegorical method is the prescribed method of interpretation, then
there it should be a simple task of pulling up testimonial encounter
after testimonial encounter or out right specificity to the fact in
either OT or NT.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
When looking for loop-holes in contracts, the
observations and objections are ALWAYS dealt with from a literal
perspective. No law school in the world teaches contract law with any
sort of non-verifiable, grammatically real and substantial meaning. So
why should anyone think that the covenants made by God are somehow
magically made to be understood allegorically.

First of all, nobody every claimed they were all allegorical. Not even
that any one of them should be interpreted entirely allegorically. But
your analogy with a business contract is a FALSE analogy. For as Paul
explained so clearly in Romans, even the Covenant with Abraham had a
fulfillment very different from what Abraham could have reasonably
expected.

No, that was not allegorical. Rather, Paul was teaching that aside
from the plain, common, literal, historical understanding, their was
hid a yet to be revealed addition to the covenant. The provision was
made as Gen 12:3 states and as Paul submits in Galatians, but that is
not, as you say, provided by allegorical methodology, but by the
revelation of the "mystery" of the Church.

Post by Matthew Johnson
He was expecting that the "many nations (Rom 4:17)" would
all be Isaac's carnal descendants, as the Orthodox Jews you love to
quote would tell you.

Now you are the one who is arguing from presupposition. "Calls into
being THAT WHICH DID NOT EXIST." This is the mystery element of the
Church. This is the Gentile nations whom Paul described as only having
an existence outside of the covenants (Eph 2). But "in the fullness of
times" (dispensations), it was revealed that Gentiles were to be
called into the kingdom as well. There is no allegorical methodology
employed here. This does not provide a defense for your position.

Post by Matthew Johnson
But what God gave was far greater: all the sons _by faith_ are
Abraham's seed.

Oh, do we need to go down this road again as to the efficient cause,
the instrumental cause, formal cause, etc? Faith has always been
required. And Gentiles could become proselytes, but they were never
called Jews or ever thought of as having inheritance in the covenants.
The "mystery" was that the Gentiles were to be grafted in -for a time,
until the time of the Gentiles was full.

Post by Matthew Johnson
How can you fail to see that this is allegorical?

How can you fail to see that it isn't allegorical but rather the
mystery element of the Church? It's not that there was no previous
revelation concerning the Gentiles, rather, it was their inclusion
within *certain* aspects of the covenants. Paul does not teach in
Galatians that all the covenants have been inherited by the Church or
that the Church has replaced the elect nation of Israel.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Again: if you would
actually _listen_ to what the Jews you cite say, you would realize
that they _deny_ that this Covenant can concern us: according to the
literal interpretation, it can only apply to Jews. But Paul tells us
it applies to ALL CHristians, not just Jewish-Christians (Gal 3:29).

His teaching is in accordance with Gen 12:3. But the Gentiles have no
part in Gen 12:1-2 or in 2 Sam 7: 7:10-16 or with Deut 30:1-10 or Ex
19:5ff. There is even debate as to whether or not the New Covenant of
Jere 31 is the new covenant of the Church. The "New Covenant" refered
to in Hebrews is contextually only speaking to Jews. Certainly the
warnings of Hebrews are not in reference to Gentiles returning to
sacrifices in the Jewish temple.

I do not debate your point about Gal speaking with the mind of Gentile
inclusion. However, it is a very different thing to push that to
equate TOTAL inheritance. Again, we've been over this before.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This is a man-made invention.

Only if Romans and Galatians are "man-made inventions".

Only if you read it into the text. The "Israel of God" is NOT the
Church, but rather the believing Jewish remnant as compared with 1 Cor
10:32.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Now, you state that you provide substantial analysis of points of
debate -here is your chance to show yourself true.

You don't know what you are talking about. I have already done this
many times. Your response _every_ single time was dishonesty,
pretending I had not. I have no doubt you will do it again this time.

Blah, bla blah, bla blah, blah. WHERE'S THE BEEF? Where is there any
substantiation of what you have presented in this post? You have
merely presented a thesis. There is NO substantiation of it.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Explain to us all, using plain grammatical sense, why anyone should
interpret the Covenants allegorically?

You don't _recognize_ "plain grammatical sense". If you did, you would
admit that your accusations are completely groundless. If you did, you
would recognize that the Archbishop's accusations against Israel are
_completely_ justified.

This is it? This is your "substantiation" of allegorical
interpretation? I can get a better response from a Protestant Covenant
theologian than anything you have so far submitted. You can't even
maintain the point.

Where, Matthew, was there any worthy substantiation of the allegorical
methodology in this post. Anything at all positive in the defense
thereof? You made an allegation, but you did not defend it. You
merely driveled, "How can you not see it" as if the defense of your
position rested upon my divining the ethreal. Come on, Matthew.
Present me with a positive defense of allegorical interpretation of
prophetic passages.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
We now have a 500AD transcript of a letter which details the major
points contained within traditional dispensationalism. But as I
often note, every Christian is a dispensationalist. So the argument
is only as to the degree to which we divide the historic economies of
God and His people.

So why didn't you name the letter? Perhaps because when we examine it
more closely, we will find it does _not_ support you?

I have. Numerous times. Do I have to keep repeating myself?

I already answered this question. No, you do not, if you get it right
once. But you never do. And in this case, you have got yourself badly
confused: for you insist that you have named the letter, yet it does
NOT show up in Google, even under the search that really should have
caught it, namely, "dispensationalism (500AD)
group:soc.religion.christian* author:Loren"

Instead, in both posts that show up, you commit the same offense you
commit in this thread: you _claim_ the letter exists, you _claim_ it
can be dated to 500AD, but you do not even _name_ the letter!

It amazes me, Loren, that you would have to gall to do this, and then
complain about _others_ allegedly "peppering your debatoer rather than
substantiating". Don't fool yourself into thinking that I am the only
one amazed.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is much easier for you to pepper your debater with questions than
to actually submit anything substantiating your own position.

So says the man who repeatedly fails to recognize substantiation, who
confused his own voluminous babbling with 'substantive' posts, who
can't even remember correctly whether or not he named the letter, or
how to find his own post under Google.

Not very convincing, Loren. In fact, downright shabby.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson
No. Scripture IS part of Tradition. Without Tradition, you do not even
have a way to know which _books_ belong in Scripture.

I guess the Holy Spirit is not much use then, eh?

Post by Matthew Johnson
In fact, Loren, you really _don't_ know which books belong there. For
you have got the list wrong. You deny books that Paul assumed his
readers knew.

??? Not at all. I deny that the Providence of God is to be overlooked
or that the Spirit is to take a back seat. Just because an epistle is
"inSpired" does mean that it was in the providential will of God to
place it in the Canon.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Any science or tradition MUST conform to what scriptures states or it
is to be recognized as false.

If only you really believed this! Then you would recognize that Sola
Scriptura itself is NEVER taught by Scripture.

Neither is the existence of God. It is assumed. Big deal. You and
your companion like to use this line of argument, but it means little.
I have earlier tonight quoted Acts 2, where the early church listened
to the teaching of the Apostles as authoritative. As Charles has
wisely pointed out in times past, Acts is a book recording the
transition out from Judisam and into Christianity. 2 Peter's
accounting is that "tradition" and "experience" are nothing in
comparision with the "sure word of God." Peter's Mt. of
Transfiguration experience he counted as beneath the authority of
Scripture. Throughout the NT, the exhortation and encouragements of
its writers is always to study the scriptures. Is this not where Luke
ends his gospel account?

Luke 24:21 "But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem
Israel.

Did they use the allegorical method? No, they interpeted the promise
even as Simeon did -literally.

Luke 24:25 And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to
believe in all that the prophets have spoken!

Now did Christ clarify what you would have us assume or rather, the
normative interpretation that "all that the prophets have spoken" were
to understood literally?

Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He
explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

WHAT? No teachings concerning the traditions? What was Christ
thinking? I guess he should have consulted you first. You could have
given Him the real scoup, the real meaning of the "kernal" of truth.

Luke 24:32 And they said to one another, "Were not our hearts burning
within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was
explaining the Scriptures to us?"

This isn't allegorical revelation. For one of the chief problems with
allegorism is the question, "when is it authorized to interpret
allegorically and when is it not?" In a word, sheer subjective
relativism.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Both the Davidic throne and the Davidic Kingdom are to be understood
*literally,* or the promises which flow out from them are invalidated
as well.

If you really believed this, and if you really believed your own pleas
for "literal interpretation" then you would admit that the Davidic
Kingdom is OVER. Otherwise, how do you recognize that the Davidic
Kingdom is continued in the Kingship of Christ, which continues
unbroken to this day?

Duh! Already/not yet. In 1 Samuel 3:7, for example, we read: "Now
Samuel did not yet know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet
revealed unto him." From the context we learn that God had already
spoken. But Samuel had not yet perceived the Word as from God. In one
sense the Word was "uncovered" objectively but in another sense, it
had not been subjectively uncovered for Samuel himself. In Gal 1:16
Paul speaks of the time when Jesus Christ was revealed in his soul as
the Savior.

Both of these concepts, objective revelation and subjective revelation
(illumination) together with a 3rd concept, inspiration, are introduced
(without being named specifically) in the classic passage of 1 Cor 2.
God gave a revelation to His chosen apostle. In this case, the
revelation is not merely a divine act but an act to convey
propositional truth from the mind of God to the apostle. Here we have
objective propositional revelation. With divine sanction and authority
this revelation in turn is conveyed by the apostle to others
(inspiration).

Now the natural man, whose mind is darkened by sin, will, however, not
receive this revelation conveyed to him by divine inspiration. He
needs the illumination of the Holy Spirit so that he may really see
what was there available for him. In short, from a Biblical viewpoint,
man needs subjective illumination, so that what has been objectively
revealed in the past and brought to Him objectively through the
inspiration of the prophet may become subjectively revealed to him
personally, may become the living voice of the Spirit to man today.

Once again the truly Biblical view of revelation is not an
"either-or" but a "both-and." It is not "either-or"--either
God reveals Himself or God reveals truth, it is "both-and"--God
reveals Himself and God reveals truth. Again the truly Biblical
perspective is not either God acts immediately or God speaks to us to
give His interpretation of truth. It is "both-and." God acts
personally and immediately in the course of history and God speaks His
revelation of truth through His prophets and apostles.

Finally the truly Biblical perspective is not either God reveals
Himself objectively, whether men see it or do not, or God reveals
Himself subjectively and immediately in the heart and mind of the
believers. But rather again it is "both-and." God manifests and
presents His truth objectively to men--whether men respond or do not
respond. And that objective revelation must be personally appropriated
through the subjective work of the Holy Spirit on the hearts and minds
of sinners who need to know the truth in order that through the truth
they may be set free.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
That the Covenants are confirmed by an oath of God, they
cannot be broken or altered in any way.

Nobody ever said that they were. You are shadow-boxing.

Not at all. You alter the meaning by allegorical revisionisms. This
brings us back to my previous post which addressed the specificity of
grammatical rules in contractual law. You did not have an answer then
and I doubt if you will actually present one now.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Covenants, by their very nature, must make grammatical sense.

Not _literal_ "grammatical sense". Ever hear of treaties with the
clause "until rivers cease to flow"?

But that too is part of literalism. Figures of speach are part of the
historical/grammatical method of interpretation. This is part of
poetry without any need of bringing in any sort of allegorical
interpretation. I suggest you reread Bullingers accounting of "Figures
of Speech Used in the Bible."

Really poor argumentation. Grasping at straws.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And if the Divine impression granted David be erroneous, then is
necessarily disparaging to his prophetic office.

But you don't know that that "Divine impression" even IS. If you did,

Again, you are of the "either/or" mentality when it comes to this
argument instead of the "both/and" or the "already/not" yet aspect of
prophetic fulfillment. In fact, the "already/not" yet aspect of
prophecy is specifically taught as a means of verification between a
prophecy of God and that of men. Review Deut 13. One of the
requirements of a true prophet of God was that he would certify himself
by the use of predictive statements which could be tested or verified
by a literal fulfillment within the generational span of its giving.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Substantiating the literal interpretation is
Solomon's claim that the covenant was fulfilled in himself but only in
so far that he too, as David's son, sat on David's throne. Your
position, like others, wrongfully infer that the entire promise is
conditional over against the most express declaration to the contrary
as to the One, the pre-eminent Seed.
Your predisposition to disavow the unconditional nature of the
covenants has far and wide implications, not the least of which concern
the Messiah and His Kingdom included.

For David knew, when the Psalms referred to Christ.

No he didn't. Certainly he had a Messianic hope. Again, based upon a
literal interpretation of the promises make by God. However, it is a
different thing to state so boldly that he knew that what he was
writing had direct reference to the Messiah. The NT declares that the
prophets sought dilegently to know what was being refered to in their
prophecies but it was hidden from them. Take a quick word search on
"hidden" in the NT.

Post by Matthew Johnson
But you do
not. You prefer to prepare yourself to receive the anti-christ and
call him 'christ'.

What a leap! We were always taught that you could tell when you had
bested your opponent. You illustrate that very fact by such a
ludicrous and completely unwarranted accusation.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The literal interpretation fits perfectly with a literal
interpretation of not only NT prophecy, but OT prophecy as well.

No, it does not, and that is why you invent reasons for certainty and
then cover up the uncertainties with snake oil.

Only the literal interpretation allows a common and sensible
understanding of the promises involved in each.

No, _only a true hermeneutic, one that allows intepretation to be
literal when it should be, and non-literal when it should be, will
"allow a common and sensible understanding of the promises involved in
each".

Then you illustrate the fact that you do not even know what the
grammatical/historical methodology is. I will not here point you to
references to educate yours in the same, because you would only refuse
or run off other "antichrist" diatribe. You hope to win the argument
by pressing the extreme, ultraliteralism, which no one that I know of
adheres to. Again, you are unfair in your debate tactics. Again,
James 3:1.

Post by Matthew Johnson
But you always turn your nose up at at true hermeneutic, prefering
excuses that will allow you to rationalize your Judaizing of
Christianity.

Isrealology is a legitimate study of the Church theology.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
BTW: Loren, if "literal interpretation of prophecy" were the only way,
then you would have GREAT trouble with Eze 26:7. For Nebuchadnezzar
never _did_ take Tyre, much less destroy the walls. Only Alexander the
Great achieved that.
That is why I have been telling you: your insistence on only
literal interpretation of prophecy is UNACCEPTABLE.

I will answer but briefly, though it will serve as an example for
this NG to understand that my answers are substantiating even when
you pull these tired, old arguments out for rehashing.

No, it will do no such thing. For you have failed again, just as I
expected you would.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Ezek 26:7-12 details certain predictions concerning the wealthy city
Tyrus.

In English, the name of the city is TYRE, not 'Tyrus'.

Sigh! You really are exasperated, aren't you. A frustrated old
curmudgeon! I believe the German term is "schadenfreuden."

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
In vs. 7-11 it states how Nebuchadnezzar would come and destroy the
city. At the 12th verse the person changes and it says "Ezek. 26:12
"Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your
merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses,
and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the
water." [NASB]

And you depart from your own beloved "grammatical/literal principles"
with your forced interpretation of who 'they' are.

No. Again, this is elementary techniques in reading literature. But
then you could not follow Peter's "they" in 2 Pet 2 as well so why
should I think you would follow the prophet here?

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The first verses were literally fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar within a
very few years after this prophecy was given.

Not true. This NEVER HAPPENED.

Hey. Reread ALL that was written. You are jumping at conclusions
before even reading all that was written.
SNIP

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
the nearness of time has caused some to doubt that it was prediction
at all and not simply a historical accounting passed off as a
prophetic marvel. However, this need not be discussed here.

You are right for the wrong reason: it need not be discussed AT
ALL. It is too silly.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The last phrase was not fulfilled at all, "and it seemed most
improbable it ever would be. What could the words mean?

They certainly can't mean what _you_ say.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Nebuchadnezzar had taken a full vengeance,

No, he did not. He gave up after a 13-year siege and went on to Egypt.

I did not write that he had completely fulfilled the prophecy. I wrote
that he had taken his full vengenance. The prophecy changes the
subjects of fulfillment, IF you had read all that had been written
before jumping at these wailing conclusions of yours.
It is late and I have no time for more except this. Prophecy is all
about hills and valleys. This is easily demonstrated by the two
advents of the Messiah. Daniel's prophecy does the same. From a
distance you see only the two mountain tops, thinking them to be on the
same range, not realizing that in fact, they are separated by an
intervening valley or even another smaller mountain range in between.
So it is common with prophecy, as the two advents exemplify. The
prophecy was literally fulfilled _in part- by Neb. Then, as is often
the case, their is a valley in between that occurance and the final
fulfilling occurance.

Basic eschatological interpretation. You are merely arguing to argue.
Also, you align yourself with higher criticism's techniques and
conclusions without knowing it. Nice going. You did this earlier but
I chose not to point it out.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
says...

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You like to take pot shots at dispensationalism and millennialism,
but you never present anything pro or con to relevant points. Why
is that?

Because dividing into "pro or con" is a really poor way to approach
any topic. If you had gone to a -respectable- seminary AND done
well there, you would know this. NO respectable seminary teaches a
"pro and con" system of hermeneutics!

Oh! I guess you decide what is "respectable" and what is not.

You did the same thing. But when I do it, you howl and complain. Is
that what they taught you at seminary, Loren? If so, that should be
proof enough that it was not a respectable seminary. For that is NOT
discussion, it is NOT critical thinking. And if that is not what they
taught you, then what IS your excuse?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Of every seminary I've been in relationship, either directly or
indirectly through friends, acquaintences, and journals,

You call reading a journal from a seminary "being in relationship"
with it? What presumption!

Post by l***@hotmail.com
all have a doctrinal statement

Yeah, I have seen those "doctrinal statements". They ALL display a
deep ignorance of the history of doctrine and dogma -- as anyone does
who substitues his own "doctrinal statement" for the Nicene Creed.

The statement may shock and anger you, but even the _thought_ of
substituting their own "doctrinal statement" for the Nicene Creed
shows that deep ignorance.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
and all require at least one -college level- paper to be written
concerning that statement, both from the pro and the con perspective.
Heck, even in bible school, it was required to write papers, pro &
con for transubstantiation and pro & con for consubstantiation.

But "writing pro & con for transubstantiation and pro & con for
consubstantiation" is an exercise in vanity. For just by _saying_
'pro' for consubstantiation, you distort the reality of the case
severely. It is almost as bad as asking for pro and con for the
statement "2+2=4".

Not to mention that BOTH terms, 'transubstantiation' and
'consubstantiation' presume an Aristotelean or Scholastic viewpoint,
and the overwhelming majority of "Bible school" students know next to
nothing about either of these. So they are in NO position to write
about trans/consubstantiation intelligently, "_judging_ by weighing
evidence pro and con" as they write.

And that Loren, is the problem with your beloved "pro and con". You
_talk_ about discussing it, but the only form of 'discussion you ever
practice is the worthless form.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Even at that entry level, we are taught to develope a studied
appreciatation of doctrinal issue from both sides of the table.

That only proves that you have a knack for picking bad seminaries for
your 'relationships'. For there is a world of a difference between
your petty "from the pro and the con perspective" and the much more
insightful dictum of Adler, "_judging_ by _weighing evidence_ pro and
con".

And that difference _is_ the difference between your mockery of
reasoning and genuine critical thinking.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
BTW, "dispensationlism and millennialism" are not "system of
hermeneutics."

Did I say they were? NO. You are shadow-boxing again. That is NOT
"informed theological debate".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
They certainly have a defined hermeneutic -the historical/grammatical
model- but it is wrong to phrase you objection as such.

No, it is not.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Again, you are shooting from the hip and I hate to be the one who has
to constantly point it out to you, but you're shooting blanks.

Simply repeating that over and over does not make it any more true,
Loren. All it accomplishes is expose you for resorting to cheap tricks
to steal credibility you never really earn.

Of course, in reality, after your shameless making excuses for the
heinous deeds of Israel in destroying Lebanon's infrastructure and
destroying homes of so many innocent civilians -- all for a military
goal they failed to achieve anyway --, you should not have any
credibility left anyway.

But of course, I know that you are not the only one in this NG who
fails to apply basic critical thinking skills to assessing the
disastrous results of UR support for Israeli audacity. And that is why
I welcome Steve's post announcing the declaration of the Archbishop of
Athens condeming Israel.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Satan is bound for 1000 yrs during the Millennial Kingdom which
Christ refered to in Mt 24, 25.

And this is one of the uncertainties I mention above. It is _far_
from certain that it it some "millenial kingdom" he is referring to
in Mt 24, 25. No, it is the end of the world and Last Judgment He
is referring to.

And this is why I have said that you reveal how little studied you
are in eschatology.

And this is why I have said so often that you reveal how little
studied YOU are in sound hermenutics. No, Loren, it does NOT "reveal
how little studied I am in eschatology". What it reveals is your
inability to face facts: you do NOT have sound reason to believe that
Mt 24,25 refer to your literal "millenial kingdom".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You've shown it to be true before

No, not even once; all I have shown is how little I am familiar with
YOUR perversion of Scripture. But this is not the same at all.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
and for the most part, did not participate in eschatological
discussions, but because of your sure dislike for me,

This is a twisted ad hominem.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
literalism, dispensationalism and millennialism (not to mention
pretrib rapture millennialism), you have ventured out into the
waters. You should learn to swim first.

More braggadocio, Loren? You don't know how to 'swim'. You only know
how to flounder in nonsense.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Mt 24 requires one to consider what has first occurred in ch 12 & 13.

And this is already a hopelessly WEAK argument. You who scream
"context, context", are looking 12 chapters away for your context!

Is that how weak an argument you need to use, Loren, to give the
appearance of sound reasoning to your dispensationalist argumentation?
You could hardly give us a better reason to _reject_ your
dispensationalism!

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Matt. 12:23 And all the multitudes were amazed, and began to say,
"This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?"
The context clear deals with the subject of the Kingdom which was
promised David.

You miss the point. Mt 12:23 does NOT promise that the Jews are about
to inherit the Kingdom promised to David. It ONLY says that that was
their EXPECTATION. But they were disappointed since, as John explains,
they were looking for a _carnal_ notion of the Kingdom -- the same
carnal notion you are looking for.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is clear because the Pharisees reacted accordingly.

Again, that only concerns their EXPECTATION.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The mention of affirmation by a sign in 12:38ff, compared to 16:1-4,
again attests to a literal interpretation of the unconditional
covenant made with David as given to us in 2 Sam 7:10ff.

How desperate you are in cooking up excuses! You even turn to the
interpretation of those who _murdered_ Christ to support you!

Post by l***@hotmail.com
There are no allegorical propositions made in this passage.

Irrelevant. This passage concerns the _expectation_, not the actual promise.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The covenant is made as all contracts are made -literal and
grammatically sensible.

That was not true the first time you said it, it is still untrue
now. Repeating it more will only convince the lurkers that you are
without a clue.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But the important aspect of these two chapters is found in Christ's
judgment concerning "this generation." Back in 11:16, "kingdom of
Matt. 11:16 "But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like
children sitting in the market places, who call out to the other
children"
which speaks of factions and inconsistencies concerning the Davidic
Covenant and its promise of the Kingdom.

And how did you think these "factions and inconsistencies" arose? Do
you really think that you are so much better at literal interpretation
than they were? How could they have arisen if, as you repeatedly
claim, the promises/covenants were so clear?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The Kingdom had been proclaimed by John the Baptist (Mt 3:3), by the
disciples at Christ's own request (10:7), by the 70 (Lk 10:9), but
were rejected by the religious leaders. The offer of this kingdom
was then withdrawn

When was it 'withdrawn', Loren?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
and from that point on and the "Mystery Kingdom", that "kingdom"
which is offered between the 1st Adv and the rejection of the offer
of the Davidic/Millennial Kingdom and the 2nd Adv and setting up of
the Millennial Kingdom which will then be accepted by the believing
remnant which is purfied as the prophet Zephaniah attests.
That brings us to Mt 23 which concludes with

No, it does not. You are trying to make it look like there is a
connection where there is little or none.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Matt. 23:36 "Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this
generation.
"This generation" is a characterization of the of unbelieving remnant
of Israel.
Matt. 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones
those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children
together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you
were unwilling.
Matt. 23:38 "Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!
Matt. 23:39 "For I say to you, from now on you shall not see Me until
you say, ' Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!'"
This very last phrase speaks of the acceptance of the Messiah and His
Kingdom.

That is a rash and confused assumption. Those who _did_ accept Him say
it refers to the Second Coming.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
THIS is the context of Mt 24 when the disciples request of
Jesus, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign
of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" (Matt. 24:3).

You call it the 'context', but this is misleading. It does NOT tell us
waht the "these things" refer to. That is done by Mt 24:1 itself,
which says it refers to the destruction of the Temple, NOT to the
Second Coming.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Mt 24:5 parallels the first seal of Rev 6
Mt 24:6 parallels the 2nd seal
Mt 24:7 incorporates the parallel of both the 3rd and 4th seals.
Mt 24:9 parallels the 5th seal. "THEN..." [comp Lk 21]

These are all weak and unconvincing parallels, since the disasters
attendant on the opening of each seal have LOTS of parallels in
Apocalyptic literature.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
"Then" of verse 9 is the same as v 21

Another rash assumption.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
which speaks of the specific prophecies concerning the "Time of
Jacob's Trouble." (Jere 30:7)

Yet another rash assumption. Wrong, too, since the prophecies of Mt
24:1-22 were fulfilled by the siege of Jerusalem during the Judaean
War, as documented in detail by Josephus.

It amazes me, Loren, that you have such an acute vision for the
largely _imaginary_ parallels you describe, yet fail to see the very
good match between the tribulations described in Mt 24 with those
described by Josephus.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Verse 14 marks the end of the Gentile Age.

Wrong. Verse 14 describes its peak. It says nothing about an end. And
it is placed there as a natural complement to v. 13, NOT because it
fits a sequence of events depicted in the surrounding verses.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Verse 15 parallels Daniel's prophecy concerning the Antichrist
breaking his covenant with Israel in the "midst of the week."

'Parallel' it may be, but it was already fulfilled long ago, again, as
Josephus describes.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The "Great Tribulation," (Mt 24:21)or the "Time of Jacob's Trouble,"
(Jere 30:7) or the "time of distress" (Dan 12:1, 7) all refer to the
last 3 1/2 yrs of Daniel's 70th week. In that the first 69 weeks
were literally and historically fulfilled by *National* Israel, so
the last week will be equally fulflilled BY ISRAEL.

Once more you resort to all caps when your evidence is weak. No, the
first 69 weeks were not " literally and historically fulfilled" by
anyone.

[snip]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Also, Mt 25 speaks of "virgins" which cannot represent the Church
because it is the "Bride of Christ."

That does not follow. You are mixing metaphors. It is quite legitimate
to refer to the Church as 'virgins' in one metaphor, and 'bride' in
another.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Both the Vulgate and the Syriac scriptures insert "went out to meet
the Bridegroom and bride" into their translations, understanding
(correctly) that the virgins represented Israel, believing and
non-believing.

We have been over this one, too. You are wrong. The insertion was done
by somebody who was not familiar with Jewish wedding practices, and
did not realize that the virgins did NOT "go out to meet the Bridegroom
and bride".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Mt 25:31 directly relates to a literal fulfillment of the Davidic
Covanent. No allegorical interpretation needed here. "His glorious
throne" is on earth where all who live through Daniel's 70th week,
will be judged and separated.

This post is too long already, and you are adding side bars??

[snip]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
ONLY by means of the literal interpretation do all the prophecies
harmonize.

No, they do NOT harmonize. You are resorting to many rash assumptions
to claim that they do. Many of these I have listed in this post, I do
not pretend to list them all. For that, you should refer to the site
the Roman apologists have put up:
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/disp.html

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Daniel's 70th week is to be interpreted literally even as the first
69 weeks were fulfilled literally.

But the "first 69 weeks" didn't -happen- as described there literally!

How can you say that?

Easily. See http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/disp.html for why.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
EVEN Simeon (Lk 2:25, 26) illustrates this fact!

No, he does not. You don't even give a hint of why you believe this is so.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
From the rebuilding of the wall (Neh 2:1 at 445 BC till the "cutting
off of the Messiah" (Dan 9:26) literally fulfills 69 weeks of years
or 483 yrs. It was fulfilled by and in Israel literally.

Not so fast. Where do you get your figure of '483 yrs'? If it is from
the same source where you got the claim that Nebuchadnezzar took Tyre,
we can safely disregard it.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The Millennial position was the Apostolic position.

Not quite.What about Peter's "a day is as a thousand years"?
That doesn't sound millenial to me.

Context please?

Remember that it was you, not I, who bragged of an exceedingly
thorough understanding of these passages due to reading "The
Millenial Kingdom". So you should not need these refs.

The problem is, you are eisegetically bringing Peter's metaphor to
bear upon the literal 1000 yrs of Rev.

No, I am not. It is not 'eisegesis' at all. If you had ever taken the
time to understand what I said you would have realized this by now.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Peter's argument is against uniformitarianism (2 P 3:4) as a basis
for denying the return of Christ.

Reading 2 Pt 3:4 as concerning 'uniformitarianism', OTOH, is
'eisegesis'. For uniformitarianism concerns natural law; but they
didn't even _have_ a clear notion of 'natural law' back then.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
"His promise" of 3:9 is in reference to the 2nd Advent, not to the
Millennial Kingdom directly. So Peter's metaphor speaks
uniformitarianism, not against Chiliasm as you proposed.
Again, you are either deliberately dishonest in your debate or just
grabbing straws.

No, it is you who is clearly being deliberately dishonest. For I have
already explained to you that the above is NOT my argument. But here
you are beating up against the same straw-man.

You may as well admit outright how weak you really are, since you
spend so much of your time and effort on straw-man arguments.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Who is being exegetically consistent?

Not you. Why, you _cannot_ be, because of Eze 26:7.

Where is YOUR analysis of the passage in question? I've already
refuted you unlearned interpretation of Eze 26

No, you have achieved no such thing. On the contrary: you repeated the
same laughable interpretation of Ezekiel that responsible bible
scholars rejected decades ago. But I have already covered this in
another post, I will not repeat myself here -- unlike you, who repeats
himself pointlessly when you haven't got a leg to stand on.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
and now I have answered your false analysis of 2 Peter.

And that 'answer' was almsot as poor, and certainly wrong. It really
was nothing but a straw-man argument.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Peter was NOT talking about The Millennium, now was he?

That is irrelevant.

It IS NOT.

Yes, it is.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Because you made the proposition that Peter was directly addressing
the length of the Kingdom Age.

No, I did not. Go back and read it again. I only claimed that he was
showing that "a thousand years" need not be literally a thousand
years. I never claimed he was "directly addressing the length of the
Kingdom Age.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Obviously Peter was not doing this because chronologically he doesn't
address the 2nd Advent until the following verse. You would have us
believing that Kingdom is set up before He returns?

Still beside the point.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
He -was- talking about the interpretation of time-periods in
Scripture,

NO! A THOUSAND TIMES NO!!!

Again, repeating yourself when you haven't got a leg to stand on.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
2 Pet. 3:4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever
since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the
beginning of creation."
It's not about the perceived slackfulness of of Christ's return.

How can you say that? What else could "promise of His coming" refer
to?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
2 Pet. 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count
slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish
but for all to come to repentance.

And you cannot understand this, since you are abusing His generosity
to us: you are NOT repenting.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
There is no definitive mention of the chronology of events until 3:10
wherein he refers to the "Day of the Lord". And if you were familar
with the OT and the NT use of this phrase, you would understand that
it includes everything after the taking out of the Church.

No, that is more of your eisegesis again. "The Day of the Lord" is
used often in the OT to refer to _any_ fulfillment of prophecy of
destruction as punishment. NOT just to the end of an age.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Both of Paul's letters to the Thessalonnians addresses this.

And predictably, you misinterpret these too.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
2 The 2:2, 3 address it specifically.

Is that why you couldn't quote them explicitly? Is this how low you
have to stoop to hide the fact that the verses do not support you?
There is no mention of "after the taking out of the Church" here. You
sound like you have been reading Timothy LaHaye more than the Bible.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The Day of the Lord includes Daniel's 70th week, the
advent of the Antichrist or "the man of lawlessness",

So you love to repeat. But when pressed for proof, all you have to
offer is dispensationalist eisegesis.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
the 2nd Adv, the separation of sheep and goats and the Millennial
Kingdom.

No, this is where you apply yet more dispensationalist eisegesis. The
separation into sheep and goats takes place at the end of time, NOT at
the beginning of an earthly kingdom.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The OT often employs the term to designate the various
aspects of the "end times."

This is the first part you got right.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
giving us an example of when the literal interpretation must be
avoided. And he was talking about the time until the Lord's return,
which has a _lot_ to do with the Millenium -- if there is one.

As I said, you are grasping at straws.

You dare to talk about "grasping at straws" after you tried to claim
that it was Alexander the Great who fulfilled the prophecy of Eze
26:7-12? Now _that_ takes gall.

But of course, this only confirms what I have suspected all along: you
base your interpretation of Scripture more on your own passions than
on any sensible hermeneutic.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Yes, the 2nd Adv is prior to the the Millennial Kingdom,

No, this is your eisegesis again.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
however, verse 8 is also prior to verse 9.

Duh. But that doesn't help you.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You, my dear boy, are being precisely eisegetical in a vain support
of your position.

No, Loren, as so often, your accusation is a better description of
what you do.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You are NOT letting the passage read for itself.

Sure I am. It is you who is not "letting the passage read for itself".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You have brought your predetermined Amillennial presupposition and
read it into the passage.

Not at all. I already explained why not very clearly. But because it
is YOU who is bringing your "predetermined" _millennial_
"presupposition" into the passages, you failed to follow the very
clear explanation.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
VERY dishonest and Very reckless handling of the Word of God.

No, the dishonesty is all yours.

[snip]

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
EVEN Simeon (Lk 2:25, 26) illustrates this fact!

No, he does not. You don't even give a hint of why you believe this is so.

Why should I have to? It's like the nose on your face. Simeon clearly
believed in a literal fulfullment. Also, this provides a substantive
reply as to the literalness of Daniel's 70 weeks. For how else would
Simeon, and much of Israel, at that time be looking for the coming of
the Messiah. Why at that time? The simple answer is that they
recognized that the 69 weeks were about complete. Remember, it is the
Jews who require a sign.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
EVEN Simeon (Lk 2:25, 26) illustrates this fact!

No, he does not. You don't even give a hint of why you believe this is so.

Why should I have to?

Because you have lost track of what 'fact' were were talking
about. You are too busy getting yourself all hyperventilated to think
straight before you reply.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It's like the nose on your face.

What is "like the nose on your face", Loren, is that you do not even
_try_ to make sense in your replies.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Simeon clearly believed in a literal fulfullment.

No, that is not clear at all. Luke never says what he means by
"consolation of the Spirit", nor does he say what Symeon means by "the
glory of thy people Israel". It IS highly reasonable to assume he
means the Resurrection of Christ and the foundation of the Church.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Also, this provides a substantive reply as to the literalness of
Daniel's 70 weeks.

By no means.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
For how else would Simeon, and much of Israel, at that time be
looking for the coming of the Messiah. Why at that time? The simple
answer is that they recognized that the 69 weeks were about complete.
Remember, it is the Jews who require a sign.

No, YOU remember: it was the Jews who were _continually_ rebuked for
requiring a sign. Yet here you are doing the exact same thing Christ
rebuked them for!

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
What? Philo not orthodox? Where did you get this idea? And where is
this mythical link between "linguistic study" and "allegorical
metholdology"?

You are either unlearned or dishonest as to the history of allegorical
interpretation. You believe it originated with Philo?

I never said that. But you got awfully close to saying it.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But all that aside for the moment. Dispensationalism and
Millennialism are all grounded within the covenants.

No, they are not. You are simply repeating as if proved the very
statement that is under contention.

This is MY school, MY position. Do you think I don't know what
Dispensationism holds and teaches?

No, I do not. For if you did, you would recognize the major problems
with the teaching. But you do not.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You think you are the better informed, the more studied, in
Dispensationism?

You are asking the wrong question. Somehow, I am not surprised.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You are speaking of things you are unknowledgeable of.

Not true. Rather, the reverse is true. It is you who has been
speaking of things you are unknownledgeable of for so long, you have
forgotten how to tell the difference -- if you ever knew.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
What I stated above is a completely accurate statement and
assessment.

No, it is not. Your link between "linguistic study" and "allegorism"
is a fiction.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And the very nature of a covenant is that they must be understood
by all parties concerned.

Then I guess you are not party to any of them.

More belittling darts. Where is your "substantive" reply?

Where is your ability to _recognize_ a substantive reply? Judging from
your posts, it is only sheer volume that you judge as 'substantive'.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Linquistically, the language employed is not extra ordinary, let alone
allegorical.

You miss the point. You _cannot_ claim that simply because it is
"not extra ordinary[sic]", it is not allegorical.

But THAT, my dear boy, is the presumptive intent

Speaking of 'presumptive', using "my dear boy" is pretty presumptive,
too. Or, more accurately, presumptuous.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
of requiring allegorical methods of interpretation. You would have
us believe that one must be of extra ordinary intelligence to
interpret the meaning of God's revelation.

Even if that were true (it isn't), that would be far, FAR better than
your approach, which presumes the opposite: you presume that one must
shut off one's brain to understand Scripture, blindly and dogmatically
accepting literally what the author NEVER intended to be taken
literally -- as well as making many other hermeneutical mistakes.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
That would make about 99% of the population of the world incapable of
understanding the Gospel. Because, as you maintain, the "husk" isn't
the real or true meaning.

And this gross mis-statement is what leads me to believe you think you
are arguing with Origen and not with me.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Oh no, like the Gnostic, it is the "kernal" or the hidden truth.

Stop showing off your ignorance. This is true of neither the Gnostic
nor the Orthodox allegorical interpretation. It is pure nonsense,
based only on bile -- your bile.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is the truth hidden within which must be divined by the
intelligencia, the ecclessia, by allegorical methods which are
incapable of being taught to the commoner.

But they are NOT "incapable of being taught to the commoner". On the
contrary: I know many 'commoners' who know them far better than you
do.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
They are common in their useage so that the ideas intended within
the contract may be accurately expressed and commonly understood.

This sounds all very nice, but the Orthodox Jews you love to quote
will NOT agree with your so-called "common understanding" of the
covenant with Abraham.

Again, when was the last time you talked with an Orthodox Jew about
such things personally?

You do not need to know. For it is actually completely irrelevant to
the real question. And when I did, it was clear that they did not
agree with what you so dishonestly call the "common understanding" of
the covenant with Abraham.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I work with an OJ, though now we are on differnt shifts, and this was
his understanding as well.

So what? This proves nothing. For there is too much diversity of
opinion among OJs. It was an 'OJ' who told me of the saying: "1 Jew +
1 Jew = 3 opinions".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
BTW, he was discipled until the age of 21 when he decided to give up
his pursuit of being a Rabbi. His name is Eldad.

And all this proves exactly nothing. It is irrelevant detail, meant to
fool the reader into thinking that your volumes of prattling are
'substantive'.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
You _should_ see this as weakening your position, and even fatally
so. But no doubt you will find excuses to avoid seeing this.

More accusation. More lack of any sort of substantiated rebuttal.

Why the double-standard, Loren? Where is _your_ "substantiated
rebuttal"? Instread of this, you gave us irrelevant chatter about
'Eldad'.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
As far as the Kingdom is concerned, even Mary interpreted
the angel's announcement of it literally.

You don't know that.

Now this can only reveal the hardness of your heart. Wow. You've
out done yourself here! And you have even, in the past, defended
Marionism. You are quite remarkable, Matthew.

No, Loren, by repeating these base and groundless slanders of me, even
immediately after whining that _I_ am accusing you, you have proved
that the "hardness of heart" is ALL yours.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This normal human government. Who signs on the dotted line of a
business agreement thinking later that they have some right to
interpret it allegorically.

You miss the point again.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
NO ONE does that.

But this is _entirely_ irrelevant. A Biblical Covenant is NOT a
business agreement, despite a _few_ similarities.

Really? If it isn't a contractual agreement, then why did Judiasm
look for a literal fulfillment of the Messianic promise, specifically
through the lineage of David.

Because they were mistaken.

[snip]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
First of all, nobody every claimed they were all allegorical. Not
even that any one of them should be interpreted entirely
allegorically. But your analogy with a business contract is a FALSE
analogy. For as Paul explained so clearly in Romans, even the
Covenant with Abraham had a fulfillment very different from what
Abraham could have reasonably expected.

No, that was not allegorical. Rather, Paul was teaching that aside
from the plain, common, literal, historical understanding, their was
hid a yet to be revealed addition to the covenant.

And yet you complain about 'allegorism', that the practitioners seek
out a hidden sense? You cannot even do literal interpretation
correctly, if you do not see how you contradict yourself here.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The provision was made as Gen 12:3 states and as Paul submits in
Galatians, but that is not, as you say, provided by allegorical
methodology, but by the revelation of the "mystery" of the Church.

No, Loren, you are completely off-base here. And you are hiding your
own failure by looking ONLY at Gen 12:3, and failing to notice that
the preceding verses, if interpeted literally, are a promise
concerning _literal descendants_ only. Yet Paul _clearly_ applies them
to ALL who are grafted into Christ, NOT just to Israel.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
He was expecting that the "many nations (Rom 4:17)" would all be
Isaac's carnal descendants, as the Orthodox Jews you love to quote
would tell you.

Now you are the one who is arguing from presupposition.

Nonsense. On the contrary: by raising this ridiculous accusation you
show that you did not even understand what the argument IS. But why am
I not surprised?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
"Calls into being THAT WHICH DID NOT EXIST."

This is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This is the mystery
element of the Church.

Oh, is it? But you are the one who repeatedly and habitually denies
what 'mystery' means. Yet now you resort to a "mystery element", even
one that is _contrary_ to the literal sense of the verse.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This is the Gentile nations whom Paul
described as only having an existence outside of the covenants (Eph
2). But "in the fullness of times" (dispensations), it was revealed
that Gentiles were to be called into the kingdom as well. There is
no allegorical methodology employed here. This does not provide a
defense for your position.

You are being highly illogical -- again. So WHAT if no "allegorical
methodology" is employed in Eph 2? We were not _talking_ about Eph
2. We were talking about Romans and Galatians, where it IS applied.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
But what God gave was far greater: all the sons _by faith_ are
Abraham's seed.

Oh, do we need to go down this road again as to the efficient cause,
the instrumental cause, formal cause, etc?

That might be profitable, Loren, only if you actually _understood_ all
the Aristotelian distinctions of causation.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Faith has always been required. And Gentiles could become
proselytes, but they were never called Jews or ever thought of as
having inheritance in the covenants. The "mystery" was that the
Gentiles were to be grafted in -for a time, until the time of the
Gentiles was full.

No, the mystery was that they were to be _fully_ grafted in, NOT just
"for a time", made FULLY co-heirs with the Jews.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
How can you fail to see that this is allegorical?

How can you fail to see that it isn't allegorical but rather the
mystery element of the Church?

Why do you think these are mutually exclusive? Because you do not
understand either one.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It's not that there was no previous revelation concerning the
Gentiles, rather, it was their inclusion within *certain* aspects of
the covenants.

And the much wider inclusion Paul describes in Romans is _radically_
different from these 'certain' aspects you mention. A large enough
difference in degree is a difference in kind.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Paul does not teach in Galatians that all the covenants have been
inherited by the Church or that the Church has replaced the elect
nation of Israel.

As often, you are far too confident of your conclusion. And your
confidence rests on Dispensationalist eisegesis -- and little else.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
Again: if you would actually _listen_ to what the Jews you cite
say, you would realize that they _deny_ that this Covenant can
concern us: according to the literal interpretation, it can only
apply to Jews. But Paul tells us it applies to ALL CHristians, not
just Jewish-Christians (Gal 3:29).

His teaching is in accordance with Gen 12:3. But the Gentiles have
no part in Gen 12:1-2 or in 2 Sam 7: 7:10-16 or with Deut 30:1-10 or
Ex 19:5ff. There is even debate as to whether or not the New
Covenant of Jere 31 is the new covenant of the Church. The "New
Covenant" refered to in Hebrews is contextually only speaking to
Jews. Certainly the warnings of Hebrews are not in reference to
Gentiles returning to sacrifices in the Jewish temple.
I do not debate your point about Gal speaking with the mind of Gentile
inclusion. However, it is a very different thing to push that to
equate TOTAL inheritance. Again, we've been over this before.

We have not been _over_ it. You may have touched on it, but that is
not the same thing. Give a reference.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This is a man-made invention.

Only if Romans and Galatians are "man-made inventions".

Only if you read it into the text.

No, Loren, using another hermeneutic other than your own is NOT
"reading into the text".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The "Israel of God" is NOT the
Church, but rather the believing Jewish remnant as compared with 1 Cor
10:32.

You are far too sure of this.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Now, you state that you provide substantial analysis of points of
debate -here is your chance to show yourself true.

You don't know what you are talking about. I have already done this
many times. Your response _every_ single time was dishonesty,
pretending I had not. I have no doubt you will do it again this
time.

Blah, bla blah, bla blah, blah. WHERE'S THE BEEF?

This is a _perfect_ example of what I mean, when I say you do not make
'substantive' responses yourself.

Drop the childishness, Loren, and then _perhaps_ real discussion will
become possible.

[snip]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Where, Matthew, was there any worthy substantiation of the
allegorical methodology in this post.

Where, Loren, have you given any thought worth responding to? Why, you
can't even punctuate your question correctly -- not that that would
help, since yoru question is incorrect to begin with.

The topic of this thread is NOT "worthy substantiation of the
allegorical methodology".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Anything at all positive in the defense
thereof?

Only the blind could still ask this question. So no surprise that you ask it.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You made an allegation, but you did not defend it. You
merely driveled, "How can you not see it" as if the defense of your
position rested upon my divining the ethreal.
Come on, Matthew.
Present me with a positive defense of allegorical interpretation of

Post by Matthew Johnson
What? Philo not orthodox? Where did you get this idea? And where is
this mythical link between "linguistic study" and "allegorical
metholdology"?

You are so careless, you even repeated your entire answer twice in one
post! And you have the gall to complain about others? Clean your
finger before you point at my spots!

[snip]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
No. Scripture IS part of Tradition. Without Tradition, you do not
even have a way to know which _books_ belong in Scripture.

I guess the Holy Spirit is not much use then, eh?

That explains why you have been abusing, not using, references to the
Holy Spirit.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
In fact, Loren, you really _don't_ know which books belong
there. For you have got the list wrong. You deny books that Paul
assumed his readers knew.

??? Not at all. I deny that the Providence of God is to be
overlooked

You deny this with your lips only. But your thoughts do reveal that
you deny that Providence.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
or that the Spirit is to take a back seat.

This, of course, is a "straw-man" argument, and a poor one at that. I
never _said_ He "is to take a back seat".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Just because an epistle is "inSpired" does mean that it was in the
providential will of God to place it in the Canon.

You miss the point. Why shouldn't we believe the Armenians when they
say that III Corinthians is also inspired, and also placed in the
Canon? You _have_ no good answer to this question.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Any science or tradition MUST conform to what scriptures states or
it is to be recognized as false.

If only you really believed this! Then you would recognize that
Sola Scriptura itself is NEVER taught by Scripture.

Neither is the existence of God.

What are you talking about? Of course it is taught by Scripture.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is assumed.

No, it is taught even in the very first verse. Scripture teaches by
indirect as well as direct means.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Big deal.

That you missed such a basic fact is a big deal, Loren.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You and your companion

What 'companion' are you talking about?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
like to use this line of argument, but it means little.

No, it means a lot.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I have earlier tonight quoted Acts 2, where the early church listened
to the teaching of the Apostles as authoritative. As Charles has
wisely pointed out in times past, Acts is a book recording the
transition out from Judisam and into Christianity.

And part of that 'transition' is defining the authority of Tradition.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
2 Peter's accounting is that "tradition" and "experience" are
nothing in comparision with the "sure word of God."

No. This is pure eisegesis.He says no such thing.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Peter's Mt. of Transfiguration experience he counted as beneath the
authority of Scripture.

No, he did not. You are confusing two separate concept he wrote about.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Throughout the NT, the exhortation and encouragements of its writers
is always to study the scriptures.

No, that is not true. It is a frequent exhortation and encouragement,
but FAR from 'always' the exhortation. And why are yopu clipping them
in mid-sentence?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Is this not where Luke ends his gospel account?

No. He does NOT end it on an appeal to literal interepretation.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Luke 24:21 "But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem
Israel.
Did they use the allegorical method? No, they interpeted the promise
even as Simeon did -literally.

And that is why they _missed_ it! They did not realize that Christ had
already redeemed Israel. Why? Because they were still foolish, still
insisting on 'redeem' as meaning "free from foreign political
oppression".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Luke 24:25 And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to
believe in all that the prophets have spoken!

And you too are slow of heart to believe. That is why you insist on
Judaizing.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Now did Christ clarify what you would have us assume or rather, the
normative interpretation that "all that the prophets have spoken"
were to understood literally?

_HOW_ He explained the prophets was not written down.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He
explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the
Scriptures.

NOW do you notice? This explanation is NOT part of the Gospel
account. So where is it? Did it disappear into the mists of time when
Cleopas died? Or is it preserved in the Tradition?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
WHAT? No teachings concerning the traditions? What was Christ
thinking? I guess he should have consulted you first.

This sort of childish sarcasm will only sully your own reputation --
as if you hadn't already dragged it deep into the mud.

[snip]

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Peter's Mt. of Transfiguration experience he counted as beneath the
authority of Scripture.

No, he did not. You are confusing two separate concept he wrote about.

I'm sorry but it is quite evident just from reading the text.


2 Pet. 1:17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father,
such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This
is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased"--
2 Pet. 1:18 and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when
we were with Him on the holy mountain.
2 Pet. 1:19 And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which
you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place,
until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.

There are two posible rendering of v.19

1) "We are better certified than before as to the prophetic word by
reason of this voice."
or
2) "We have the word of prophecy as a surer confirmation of God's
truth than what we saw ourselves, :i.e. OT testimony is more convincing
than even the voice heard at the transfiguration" [Vincent]

The context of the following two verses argues for the second rendering
as Peter argues that the OT scriptures are unmistakably reliable as to
their Divine inspiriation.

Lumby writes:

"To appreciate this we must put ourselves somewhat in the place of
those for whom St. Peter wrote. The NT, as we have ti, was to them
non-existent. Therefore we can redily understand how the long line of
prophetic scriptures, fulfilled in so many ways in the life of Jesus,
would be a mightier form of evidence than the narrative of one single
event in Peter's life."

Samuel Cox writes:

"Peter knew a sounder basis for faith than that of signs and wonders.
He had seen our Lord Jesus Christ receive honor and glory from God the
Father in theholymount; he had been dazzled and carried out of himself
by visions and voices from heaven; but nevertheless, even when his
memory and heart are throbbing with recollections of that sublime
scene, he says, 'we have something surer still in the prophetic word.'
. . . It was not the miracles of Christ by which he came to know Jesus,
but the word of Christ as interpreted by the SPirit of Christ."

Wuest writes:

"More sure' is the comparative of bebaisos, 'stable, fast, firm,'
metaphorically, 'sure, trusty.' The idea here is of someting that is
firm, stable, something that can be relied upon or trusted in. The
idea in the Greek text is, 'We have the prophetic word as a surer
foundation' than even the sings and wonders which we have seen."

Commenting on luchnos (light, lamp) and auchmeros (dark), Thayer
comments:

"To a lamp is likened the prophecies of the OT inasmuch as they
afforded at least some knowledge relative to the glorious return of
Jesus from heaven down even to the time when by the Holy Spirit that
same light, like the day and the day-star, shone upon the hearts of
men, the light by which the prophets themselves had been enlightened
and which was necessary to the full perception of the true meaning of
their prophecies."


......... so the point stands until you provide something more
substantial than your usual denial.

Why do you always deny and rarely if ever actually present positive
evidence? You deny this. You deny that we all have a sin nature. You
deny that justification is a once and for all declarative act of God.
You deny the security of believer. You deny Israel it's covenant
promises. Any why? Because your theological position would fall to
the ground if these were taken in normative reading of the text.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Is this not where Luke ends his gospel account?

No. He does NOT end it on an appeal to literal interepretation.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Luke 24:21 "But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem
Israel.
Did they use the allegorical method? No, they interpeted the promise
even as Simeon did -literally.

And that is why they _missed_ it! They did not realize that Christ had
already redeemed Israel. Why? Because they were still foolish, still
insisting on 'redeem' as meaning "free from foreign political
oppression".

Well Simeon couldn't have "missed it" because he was dead by that time.
Simeon, calculating from a literal rendition of Daniel's 69 weeks,
like most of Israel, was anticipating the Messianic event.

The "Israel of God" is indeed redeemed as partakers of the Church Age
blessings. However, even as there are still distinct diffferences
between male and female, even so there are distinct differences between
Israel and the Church. Israel's national redemption is yet future. The
OT covenants define Israel as an elect "nation." The Church is never
described by the terms, "Israel," "Jacob," "Tribes," "nation,"
"wife" etc. These terms are only proper for elect Israel. I sent out
a new thread on "Israel: The Wife of Jehovah" which the moderator has
not yet posted. It is but one evidence that Israel is not the Church
and the Church is not Israel.

You rightly cry against eisegetical interpretation. However, you're
like teflon when it comes to your reading back into the OT prophecies
concerning Israel, the Church which was never disclosed until the Upper
Room Discourse. Either the Church was a mystery, i.e. that which was
not revealed," or it is not. Paul termed it a mystery. Thankyou very
much, but I will take his word over your own.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Peter's Mt. of Transfiguration experience he counted as beneath the
authority of Scripture.

No, he did not. You are confusing two separate concept he wrote about.

I'm sorry but it is quite evident just from reading the text.

You should be sorry. For it is not "evident just from reading the
text" at all. If it were, I would not have written "No, he did not". I
did read it before I posted that, you know.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
2 Pet. 1:17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father,
such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This
is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased"--
2 Pet. 1:18 and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when
we were with Him on the holy mountain.
2 Pet. 1:19 And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which
you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place,
until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
There are two posible rendering of v.19

No. Only your second is close. But not close enough. See below.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
1) "We are better certified than before as to the prophetic word by
reason of this voice."

This is simply wrong.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
or
2) "We have the word of prophecy as a surer confirmation of God's
truth than what we saw ourselves, :i.e. OT testimony is more convincing
than even the voice heard at the transfiguration" [Vincent]

This is wrong, too. It should have read:

"We have surer the prophetic word to which you do well to pay
attention as to a light shining in the darkness until the day dawns
and the Morning star rises in your hearts".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The context of the following two verses argues for the second rendering
as Peter argues that the OT scriptures are unmistakably reliable as to
their Divine inspiration.

No, he is arguing no such thing. What do you think "the prophetic
word" refers to in this passge? Which _prophecy_ could it refer to?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
"To appreciate this we must put ourselves somewhat in the place of
those for whom St. Peter wrote.

Easier said than done. Lumby has not done it himself (judging from the
passage you cite.)

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The NT, as we have it, was to them non-existent. Therefore we can
redily understand how the long line of prophetic scriptures,
fulfilled in so many ways in the life of Jesus, would be a mightier
form of evidence than the narrative of one single event in Peter's
life."

Now did Lumby miss the point, or did you? It is not clear from your
citation. But the point has certainly been missed. Peter is saying
that the "prophetic word" of the OT, predicting the coming and saving
work of Christ in allegorical and typological language, was made
'surer' by the Transfiguration.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
"Peter knew a sounder basis for faith than that of signs and wonders.

Unfortunately, this line alone already makes it clear that Cox has
read Peter backwards.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
He had seen our Lord Jesus Christ receive honor and glory from God
the Father in the holy mount; he had been dazzled and carried out of
himself by visions and voices from heaven; but nevertheless, even
when his memory and heart are throbbing with recollections of that
sublime scene, he says, 'we have something surer still in the
prophetic word.'

No. This is exacly backwards. "something surer IN the prophetic word"
would have been "EXOMEN TI BEBAIOTERON EN TWi PROFHTIKWi, LOGWi". But
that is NOT what he wrote! He wrote "EXOMEN BEBAIOTERON TON PROFHTIKON
LOGON".

Now I know from past tangling with you that you do not know Greek all
that well: but surely even you ralize that there can be no comparative
inserted between 'surer' and 'prophetic word' here, since both are in
the accusative case.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
. . . It was not the miracles of Christ by which he came to know
Jesus, but the word of Christ as interpreted by the Spirit of
Christ."
"More sure' is the comparative of bebaisos, 'stable, fast, firm,'
metaphorically, 'sure, trusty.' The idea here is of someting that is
firm, stable, something that can be relied upon or trusted in.

It is such a pity Wuest got all this right so far, only to blow it

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The idea in the Greek text is, 'We have the prophetic word as a surer
foundation' than even the signs and wonders which we have seen."

But this is _blatantly_ off! He is inserting "signs and wonders" and
'foundation' where there is NOTHING corresponding to these in the
text.

Furthermore, this assumes that PROFHTIKON LOGON is subect, and
BEBAIOTERON predicate. Why would we assume this? After all, that
leaves us with a very _forced_ expression in Peter's Greek.

So no, Wuest is going through contortions to make the text look like
it says what he wants it to say.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Commenting on luchnos (light, lamp) and auchmeros (dark), Thayer
"To a lamp is likened the prophecies of the OT inasmuch as they
afforded at least some knowledge relative to the glorious return of
Jesus from heaven down even to the time when by the Holy Spirit that
same light, like the day and the day-star, shone upon the hearts of
men, the light by which the prophets themselves had been enlightened
and which was necessary to the full perception of the true meaning of
their prophecies."
......... so the point stands until you provide something more
substantial than your usual denial.

No, it doesn't stand at all. On the contrary: each of your sources is
resorting to the same very FORCED intepretation of the Greek, one NO
native speaker would ever have endorsed.

Again: we have the testimony of the Fathers, both indirectly and
directly coming from native speakers, that NEVER uses your
interpretation. On the contrary: they all read it as I do, that Peter
is saying that the "prophetic word" of the OT, predicting the coming
and saving work of Christ in allegorical and typological language, was
made 'surer' by the Transfiguration.

This is repeated over and over in the divine services for the feast of
the Transfiguration. I did a separate post on this topic.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Why do you always deny and rarely if ever actually present positive
evidence?

I am under no obligation to answer leading questions.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You deny this. You deny that we all have a sin nature. You
deny that justification is a once and for all declarative act of God.
You deny the security of believer. You deny Israel it's covenant
promises. Any why? Because your theological position would fall to
the ground if these were taken in normative reading of the text.

No, I deny it all because your theological position has already fallen
to the ground, and you are stoutly denying all the evidence of this,
instead of engaging in dialog.

When I see a genuine attempt at _dialog_ I _do_ "present positive
evidence". I have a LONG history of doing so in this NG. You have just
as long a history of ignoring it and denying it; just as you have a
long history of avoiding genuine dialog.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Is this not where Luke ends his gospel account?

No. He does NOT end it on an appeal to literal interepretation.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Luke 24:21 "But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem
Israel.
Did they use the allegorical method? No, they interpeted the
promise even as Simeon did -literally.

And that is why they _missed_ it! They did not realize that Christ
had already redeemed Israel. Why? Because they were still foolish,
still insisting on 'redeem' as meaning "free from foreign political
oppression".

Well Simeon couldn't have "missed it" because he was dead by that time.

So why _were_ you bringing up his example? There is no _Scriptural_
evidence that Symeon shared their literal interpretation. We have
already been over this.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Simeon, calculating from a literal rendition of Daniel's 69 weeks,
like most of Israel, was anticipating the Messianic event.

And when did he do this 'calculating', Loren? Or are you sprinking
your verbiage with dangling participles?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The "Israel of God" is indeed redeemed as partakers of the Church Age
blessings. However, even as there are still distinct diffferences
between male and female, even so there are distinct differences between
Israel and the Church. Israel's national redemption is yet future. The
OT covenants define Israel as an elect "nation." The Church is never
described by the terms, "Israel," "Jacob," "Tribes," "nation,"
"wife" etc. These terms are only proper for elect Israel. I sent out
a new thread on "Israel: The Wife of Jehovah" which the moderator has
not yet posted. It is but one evidence that Israel is not the Church
and the Church is not Israel.

And see my response to that post. It is not _even_ "one evidence".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You rightly cry against eisegetical interpretation.

Now if only you would hear my cries!

Post by l***@hotmail.com
However, you're like teflon when it comes to your reading back into
the OT prophecies concerning Israel, the Church which was never
disclosed until the Upper Room Discourse.

The reason I am "like teflon" is that you keep on proclaiming your
false interpertations, and never give sound evidence. Instead, you
keep on pining your entire exegesis on such a fallacy as this, that
"the Church was never disclosed until the Upper Room Discourse". I
will stoutly resist EVERY attempt to appeal for credibility based on
such fallacies, Loren.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Either the Church was a mystery, i.e. that which was not revealed,"
or it is not. Paul termed it a mystery. Thank you very much, but I
will take his word over your own.

So you say, but you have not done it yet. You take Darby's word over
Paul's. Why, you even make ti easy to believe that you would even take
Hal Lindsey's word over Paul's.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
2 Pet. 1:19 And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which
you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place,
until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.

"We have surer the prophetic word to which you do well to pay
attention as to a light shining in the darkness until the day dawns
and the Morning star rises in your hearts".

My personal translation is:

Even so, we have an even more sure word of prophecy, to which we do
well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark and merky place
untile The Day dawns and The Morning Star arises in our hearts.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The context of the following two verses argues for the second rendering
as Peter argues that the OT scriptures are unmistakably reliable as to
their Divine inspiration.

No, he is arguing no such thing.

Then you simply don't know how to exegete.

Post by Matthew Johnson
What do you think "the prophetic
word" refers to in this passge? Which _prophecy_ could it refer to?

You have before stated that "prophecy", esp in the NT. has the prefered
meaning of forthtell as to the commonly interpreted, foretelling. You
are assuming the later. I don't see that in the context. Rather he is
contrasting the "cleaverly devised tales" of the false teachers. To
study the root of this word we find a primary meaning which includes,
"a fiction which embodies the truth." Isn't that the definition of an
allegory?

Post by Matthew Johnson
No. This is exacly backwards. "something surer IN the prophetic word"
would have been "EXOMEN TI BEBAIOTERON EN TWi PROFHTIKWi, LOGWi". But
that is NOT what he wrote! He wrote "EXOMEN BEBAIOTERON TON PROFHTIKON
LOGON".
Now I know from past tangling with you that you do not know Greek all
that well: but surely even you ralize that there can be no comparative
inserted between 'surer' and 'prophetic word' here, since both are in
the accusative case.

So what? Context determines. Let's see. NASB marginal note: "and we
have the even surer word of prophecy." The Expanded Translation reads:
"And we have the prophetic word as a surer foundation." The New
English translation reads: All this only confirms for us the message
of the prophets." About the only denomination not involved in this
translation is the OC. Even my Oxford Bible reads: "We have also a
more sure word of prophecy." The RSV reads, "And we have the prophetic
word made more sure." The Lockman Foundation translation (150 Gk
scholars for the NTV) "And we have the prophetic word [made] firmer
still."

So you, my friend, stand in the minority.

Signs and Wonders (Mt Transfiguration) only attest to superior
revelation of Scripture.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
. . . It was not the miracles of Christ by which he came to know
Jesus, but the word of Christ as interpreted by the Spirit of
Christ."
"More sure' is the comparative of bebaisos, 'stable, fast, firm,'
metaphorically, 'sure, trusty.' The idea here is of someting that is
firm, stable, something that can be relied upon or trusted in.

It is such a pity Wuest got all this right so far, only to blow it

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The idea in the Greek text is, 'We have the prophetic word as a surer
foundation' than even the signs and wonders which we have seen."

But this is _blatantly_ off! He is inserting "signs and wonders" and
'foundation' where there is NOTHING corresponding to these in the
text.

BTW, he and Vincent were representatives in the Lockman Foundation
translation. The "signs and wonders" are contextually, the MT.
Transfiguration experience. It ranks right up amoung the greatest of
the "signs".

Post by Matthew Johnson
Furthermore, this assumes that PROFHTIKON LOGON is subect, and
BEBAIOTERON predicate. Why would we assume this? After all, that
leaves us with a very _forced_ expression in Peter's Greek.
So no, Wuest is going through contortions to make the text look like
it says what he wants it to say.

Not at all. It is you who, seeking to protect his precious Tradition
is equal to Scripture presumption who is twisting the text. Again, you
stand in the minority on this one bub.

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, it doesn't stand at all. On the contrary: each of your sources is
resorting to the same very FORCED intepretation of the Greek, one NO
native speaker would ever have endorsed.

Biggs, in the International Critical Commentary translates it thus:
"And even surer is the word of prophecy which we have" Biggs refers to
Augustine's who read it to mean, "surer to you." Biggs comments on
this as meaning: "You were not on the Mount as we were, and you may not
unreasonably think the word of the old prophets more trusty than ours,
" [Johann. Tract 35:8; Serm 27]. Biggs concludes "But if this were the
meaning we should have expected exete, as Alford states." [BTW, Alford
disagrees with you as well.]

Biggs then reviews the scriptural passages which use bebaios or other
root related words before launching into the Father's comments. His
conclusion is: "But in the resent passage St. Peter is not comparing
different degrees of certainty in the prophetic word, but the word of
prophecy with the word of the Transfiguration." Again, the apostle
could hardly make a point of the confirmation of prophecy; it needed no
confirmation; it was fulfilled by the gospel, but not proved; on the
contrary, it was regarded as a proof of the gospel. The most natural
view is that he is here appealing to a second witness, which, for the
purpose of the second chapter, is even stronger [more authoritative]
than his first [Mt. Transfiguration prophetic word]."

Post by Matthew Johnson
Again: we have the testimony of the Fathers, both indirectly and
directly coming from native speakers, that NEVER uses your
interpretation. On the contrary: they all read it as I do, that Peter
is saying that the "prophetic word" of the OT, predicting the coming
and saving work of Christ in allegorical and typological language, was
made 'surer' by the Transfiguration.

I'm sorry, but I find no one agreeing with this. All DISAGREE
specifically because of v. 16. Biggs notes Epictetus, Plutarch, Dio
Chrysostom, Lucian, Clement of Alexander. You should read his
introduction!

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Either the Church was a mystery, i.e. that which was not revealed,"
or it is not. Paul termed it a mystery. Thank you very much, but I
will take his word over your own.

So you say, but you have not done it yet. You take Darby's word

Never read him. This is the great hoax all you antidispenationalist
like to throw up.

Post by Matthew Johnson
over
Paul's. Why, you even make ti easy to believe that you would even take
Hal Lindsey's word over Paul's.

Now where do they disagree? Can you even give me a quote from Hal
Lindsey? Have you ever read him? Besides, is he THE dispensational
representative? I think not. Ryrie would come to for long be Lindsey.

But you still have no answer for Dan 12:9. The events of Daniel's
prophecy are not to be revealed until the "end." Eschatology is the
primary aspect of theology to come into debate in our generation. This
is the generation which has seen Israel return to the land -as
prophecied. Your "allegorical interpretation required" eschatological
position is a, how did you put it, "contortion?"

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
2 Pet. 1:19 And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which
you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place,
until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.

"We have surer the prophetic word to which you do well to pay
attention as to a light shining in the darkness until the day dawns
and the Morning star rises in your hearts".

You have already displayed quite prominently that you do not know
Greek well enough to offer a "personal translation" worth anything.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Even so, we have an even more sure word of prophecy, to which we do
well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark and merky place
untile The Day dawns and The Morning Star arises in our hearts.

And this is wrong, for the reasons I already explained in msg-id

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The context of the following two verses argues for the second
rendering

No, it does no such thing. That is the whole point.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
as Peter argues that the OT scriptures are unmistakably reliable
as to their Divine inspiration.

'Reliable', yes. But indefinite. How were they to know that the
predicted "Prophet like unto Moses" was indeed Jesus? THAT is what was
confirmed, i.e., made 'surer' or 'firmer' by the Transfiguration.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, he is arguing no such thing.

Then you simply don't know how to exegete.

No, that describes your own inability better than any of mine.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
What do you think "the prophetic word" refers to in this passge?
Which _prophecy_ could it refer to?

You have before stated that "prophecy", esp in the NT. has the
prefered meaning of forthtell as to the commonly interpreted,
foretelling.

When did I say this? I think you are making this up.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You are assuming the later.

No, I am not. You really are making things up.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I don't see that in the context.

That you don't see it proves nothing.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Rather he is contrasting the "cleaverly devised tales" of the false
teachers. To study the root of this word we find a primary meaning
which includes, "a fiction which embodies the truth."

And do you have a source for this fanciful claim? Why, you have even
lost track of how many words we are talking about.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Isn't that the definition of an allegory?

No, that is not. And this, BTW, is a splendid example of how it is you
who does not "know how to exegete[sic]".

If you knew how to 'exegete[sic]', you would know that 'exegete' is a
NOUN, not a VERB!

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
No. This is exacly backwards. "something surer IN the prophetic
word" would have been "EXOMEN TI BEBAIOTERON EN TWi PROFHTIKWi,
LOGWi". But that is NOT what he wrote! He wrote "EXOMEN BEBAIOTERON
TON PROFHTIKON LOGON".
Now I know from past tangling with you that you do not know Greek
all that well: but surely even you ralize that there can be no
comparative inserted between 'surer' and 'prophetic word' here,
since both are in the accusative case.

So what? Context determines.

Coming from your lips, this 'principle' is nothing but an excuse to
ignore the text and make up meanings. No, Loren context does NOT
'determine'. It generally can only make more specific what is allowed
by the expression itself. And if you believe this passage is an
exception, you will have to do better than that to make your case.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Let's see. NASB marginal note: "and we have the even surer word of
prophecy."

Tell me, Loren: is BEBAIOTERON in attributive position, or predicate?
Do you know the difference?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
"And we have the prophetic word as a surer foundation."

Well, at least they know the difference between predicate and
attributive position.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The New English translation reads: All this only confirms for us the
message of the prophets."

This is not even a translation. It is a paraphrase, and a very loose
one. You can't rely on that.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
About the only denomination not involved in this
translation is the OC.

That doesn't say much. We don't get involved in most translation
projects into English. If you heard the awful translation we use for
English you would know why;)

But we do NOT follow any English translation. We follow the original
Greek, something you give only lip-service to.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Even my Oxford Bible reads: "We have also a more sure word of
prophecy." The RSV reads, "And we have the prophetic word made more
sure." The Lockman Foundation translation (150 Gk scholars for the
NTV) "And we have the prophetic word [made] firmer still."
So you, my friend, stand in the minority.

But it is a _good_ minority, since unlike you array of 'scholars', it
includes native speakers of Koine Greek. The testimony of Theophylact
outweighs your "150 Gk scholars" any day of the week.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Signs and Wonders (Mt Transfiguration) only attest to superior
revelation of Scripture.

This interpretation is _obviously_ out of context. Why would he have
spent so many words on the Transfiguration if Scripture, which his
readers already have, is 'surer'? Why would the wonders have been
revealed at all?

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
. . . It was not the miracles of Christ by which he came to know
Jesus, but the word of Christ as interpreted by the Spirit of
Christ."

[snip]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
But this is _blatantly_ off! He is inserting "signs and wonders" and
'foundation' where there is NOTHING corresponding to these in the
text.

BTW, he and Vincent were representatives in the Lockman Foundation
translation.

Which means you have just undercut your own argument. For as I already
pointed out, Wuest _consistently_ biases his exegesis of the Greek in
favor of his Reform theology.

So admitting him to the Foundation is a -black- mark against the
Foundation.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The "signs and wonders" are contextually, the MT. Transfiguration
experience.

Obviously. But this is why your interpretation is impossible.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It ranks right up amoung the greatest of
the "signs".

Post by Matthew Johnson
Furthermore, this assumes that PROFHTIKON LOGON is subect, and
BEBAIOTERON predicate. Why would we assume this? After all, that
leaves us with a very _forced_ expression in Peter's Greek.
So no, Wuest is going through contortions to make the text look like
it says what he wants it to say.

Not at all. It is you who, seeking to protect his precious Tradition
is equal to Scripture presumption who is twisting the text. Again, you
stand in the minority on this one bub.

Again, my 'minority' is the right one to stand in, since unlike your
'scholars', it includes scholarly native speakers of Koine Greek.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, it doesn't stand at all. On the contrary: each of your sources is
resorting to the same very FORCED intepretation of the Greek, one NO
native speaker would ever have endorsed.

"And even surer is the word of prophecy which we have" Biggs refers to
Augustine's who read it to mean, "surer to you." Biggs comments on
this as meaning: "You were not on the Mount as we were, and you may not
unreasonably think the word of the old prophets more trusty than ours,
" [Johann. Tract 35:8; Serm 27]. Biggs concludes "But if this were the
meaning we should have expected exete, as Alford states." [BTW, Alford
disagrees with you as well.]
Biggs then reviews the scriptural passages which use bebaios or other
root related words before launching into the Father's comments.

Which 'review' you did not include. But perhaps that is for the best,
since it is so unlikely to be relevant.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
His conclusion is: "But in the resent passage St. Peter is not
comparing different degrees of certainty in the prophetic word, but
the word of prophecy with the word of the Transfiguration."

Which I notice does NOT agree with your earlier claim that it
contrasts with the MYQOI of 1 Pe 1:16.

Make up your mind, Loren.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Again, the apostle could hardly make a point of the confirmation of
prophecy; it needed no confirmation; it was fulfilled by the gospel,
but not proved;

This statement makes no sense. If it was not proved, then it -did-
need confirmation.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
on the contrary, it was regarded as a proof of the gospel. The most
natural view is that he is here appealing to a second witness, which,
for the purpose of the second chapter, is even stronger [more
authoritative] than his first [Mt. Transfiguration prophetic word]."

Post by Matthew Johnson
Again: we have the testimony of the Fathers, both indirectly and
directly coming from native speakers, that NEVER uses your
interpretation. On the contrary: they all read it as I do, that Peter
is saying that the "prophetic word" of the OT, predicting the coming
and saving work of Christ in allegorical and typological language, was
made 'surer' by the Transfiguration.

I'm sorry, but I find no one agreeing with this.

But that is only because you are not making a serious search.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
All DISAGREE
specifically because of v. 16. Biggs notes Epictetus, Plutarch, Dio
Chrysostom, Lucian, Clement of Alexander. You should read his
introduction!

Plutarch? Why is he referencing Plutarch? How could Plutarch "disagree
specifically because of v. 16"? It hadn't been written when he wrote!

The inclusion of Plutarch shows Biggs goes so off topic, and you think
I should read it? You could hardly have done better for coming up with
evidence that Biggs should be ignored.

Also, I have not forgotten that EVERY time in the past when you
claimed Chrysostom supported you, you turned out to be wrong. So it
does you no good to list his name here.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Either the Church was a mystery, i.e. that which was not
revealed," or it is not. Paul termed it a mystery. Thank you
very much, but I will take his word over your own.

So you say, but you have not done it yet. You take Darby's word

Never read him.

Then I guess you are not as "effecive a liar" as Darby. For you
_quote_ him in Message-ID: <a9h7ee$jsm$***@bob.news.rcn.net>. How could
you quote someone you have never read?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This is the great hoax all you antidispenationalist
like to throw up.

It is no hoax. Unfortunately, you don't have to have read him to fall
into his trap. And you have read him, despite your claim here.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
over Paul's. Why, you even make it easy to believe that you would
even take Hal Lindsey's word over Paul's.

Now where do they disagree?

Too many places to list.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Can you even give me a quote from Hal Lindsey?

I can but I wont'. Why would I?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Have you ever read
him?

Long, long ago, I read "The Late, Great Planet Earth". I try to
suppress the memory.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Besides, is he THE dispensational representative? I think not.

Then why are you claiming that he and Paul do not disagree?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Ryrie would come to for long be Lindsey.

Another non-sentence.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But you still have no answer for Dan 12:9.

I don't have to have an answer for what is not a question.

[snip]

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson
You have already displayed quite prominently that you do not know
Greek well enough to offer a "personal translation" worth anything.

And this sort of reply illustrates quite adequately why you are being
rebuked for ruining the SRC-BS NG. You don't merely disagree on
doctrine, you turn it into a personal affront, belittling any and all
who happen to express an opinion even a little bid different than your
own.

Post by Matthew Johnson
And this is wrong, for the reasons I already explained in msg-id

It was correct enough for me get credit for in my Greek class. It also
is very close to Wuest, Alford, Vine, and my own Greek teachers
translation.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
as Peter argues that the OT scriptures are unmistakably reliable
as to their Divine inspiration.

'Reliable', yes. But indefinite. How were they to know that the
predicted "Prophet like unto Moses" was indeed Jesus? THAT is what was
confirmed, i.e., made 'surer' or 'firmer' by the Transfiguration.

And here is where you interpretation takes on a purely humanistic bent
to it. Your position ignores 1) alliance with scripture (the Jews were
looking for the advent of HaMashiach because the 69 weeks foretold by
Daniel's prophecy, had come to fruition), 2) the required enlightenment
by the Spirit. " flesh and blood did not reveal this to you." The
Peter's argument is based upon scriptural testimony. He is arguing for
the veracity of Scripture, i.e. its authoritative quality. The Mt of
Transfiguration incident is of particular worth in that it augmented
the scriptural testimony while at the same time, verifying the veracity
of it.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Rather he is contrasting the "cleaverly devised tales" of the false
teachers. To study the root of this word we find a primary meaning
which includes, "a fiction which embodies the truth."

And do you have a source for this fanciful claim? Why, you have even
lost track of how many words we are talking about.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Isn't that the definition of an allegory?

No, that is not.

Let's see what THE authority on Biblical figures of speach has to say:

"No figure requires more careful discrimination than *Allegory.* And
it would be safer to say that there are no allegoires in Scripture than
to follow one's own judgment as to what is allegory and what is not."
"According to the modern sense: it is taken to mean a fictitious
narrative which has another and deeper meaning than that which is
expressed."
"Allegory is always stated in *past* tense and *never* in the future
tense. Allegory is thus distinquished from Prophecy. The allegory
brings other teaching out of past events, while the prophecy tells us
events that are yet to come, and means exactly what is said."

[E.W. Bullinger, "Figures of Speech Used in The Bible" p 749.]

Post by Matthew Johnson
And this, BTW, is a splendid example of how it is you
who does not "know how to exegete[sic]".
If you knew how to 'exegete[sic]', you would know that 'exegete' is a
NOUN, not a VERB!

Language evolves. Get over it.
SNIP

Post by Matthew Johnson
Tell me, Loren: is BEBAIOTERON in attributive position, or predicate?
Do you know the difference?

And if I do, so what? If I don't, so what? I defer to the scholars
who brought forth the translations I listed. I suppose you would ask
them the same question?

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
"And we have the prophetic word as a surer foundation."

Well, at least they know the difference between predicate and
attributive position.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The New English translation reads: All this only confirms for us the
message of the prophets."

This is not even a translation. It is a paraphrase, and a very loose
one. You can't rely on that.

Paraphrases do not contradict the meaning of the original. Rather,
their presupposition, which is a correct one, is that there is no such
thing as a one-on-one translation. Words carry with them concepts and
sometimes concepts need to be paraphrased in order that the second
language can more readily grasp the concept. Though I rarely refer to
the NE translation, it is still afforded high marks by a great many
differing theological schools.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
About the only denomination not involved in this
translation is the OC.

That doesn't say much. We don't get involved in most translation
projects into English. If you heard the awful translation we use for
English you would know why;)
But we do NOT follow any English translation. We follow the original
Greek, something you give only lip-service to.

Why was the NT written in Greek? Why was all but 7 chapters of the OT
written in Hebrew? Why were those 7 particular chapters written in
Aramaic? Because at the time, they were the common venacular of the
people. Therefore it is rather sophist to insist on only a Greek
"translation." If the Great Commission was to "go into all the world"
then obviously that includes to "all tongues." Rather, what you
represent, whether it is OC doctrine or not, is just another form of
gnosticism. Pride.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Even my Oxford Bible reads
The Lockman Foundation translation
So you, my friend, stand in the minority.

So are we chiliasts. It has the historical authority.

"The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene Age [AD
100-325] is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism. . . a widely
current opinion of distinquished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias,
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius" were
all chiliasts. [Scribner, "History of the Christian Church, Vol 2. p
614]

You hardly make a reply without your self-imposed trump card "The Early
Fathers" and yet one such a clear note, you not only disagree with
their writings, you oppose the "tradition" of the disciples of the
Apostles and their disciples. Polycarp was most like a disciple of
John who wrote Revelation, and he was a chiliasts as well has his
disciple, Papias. THIS is why I continue to maintain my original
argument, you are either anti-Semitic, anti-Judaic or anti-Israel or
even all three. It would be interesting to know the history of the
OC's treatment of the Jews. How incredibly ironic it is that after
only a few centuries that the which had once been almost exclusively
Jewish not only became almost exclusively Gentile, but it forced Jewish
believers into renouncing all their heredity, traditions and identity.
The Messiah was Jewish. The writers of the Scriptures were Jewish.
All of the disciples and Apostles were Jewish. The first church
congregation was Jewish with all Jewish elders. Even the missionaries
to the Gentiles were all Jewish.

"as a man thinketh, so he is."

The amillennial view has produced some of the worst crimes of all human
history. Luther's view on the Jews, especially late in life, are
infamous. But what is little known, is that Hitler took Luther's later
amillennial conclusions to fruition. Certainly Hitler had evolutionism
as his primary vindicator, but he also synthesized amillennial
Lutherism. This extends equally to German Protestants during the early
Nazi years. "Luther's advice was literally followe four cinturies
later by Hitler, Goering, and Himmier." [William Shirer, "The Rise and
Fall of the Third Reich," p. 236]

It was once asked here in SRC several years ago, "Do eschatological
positions really make a difference in day-to-day affairs?" I've
pondered that very question ever since reading it. IT DOES MAKE A
DIFFERENCE. Hitler proved it. The pro Palestinian, anit-Israel,
National Councils of Churches prove it as well.
.

Post by Matthew Johnson
But it is a _good_ minority, since unlike you array of 'scholars', it
includes native speakers of Koine Greek. The testimony of Theophylact
outweighs your "150 Gk scholars" any day of the week.

This is a false analysis of what is concerned. We have over 5000
transcripts from which to draw testimony from. What did Theophylact or
the early fathers have? The "native speaker" trump card you like to
lay out from time to time, is not the "bower power" you imagine it to
be. You are far too simplistic in your analysis and resulting
conclusion. I'll take the 150 scholars working off of 5000+
transcripts and 2000yrs of linquistic analysis over your "native
speakers" and their limited resources. The 150 scholars have their
analysis of the text which they had at hand PLUS better transcripts and
2000 yrs of linquistic and theological study to draw from. "Native
speakers" is a good card to have in your hand, but it is only one card.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Biggs, in the International Critical Commentary translates it thus....."
Biggs refers to Augustine's who read it to mean.....
Biggs then reviews the scriptural passages which use bebaios or other
root related words before launching into the Father's comments.

Which 'review' you did not include. But perhaps that is for the best,
since it is so unlikely to be relevant.

Teflon Man!

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
All DISAGREE
specifically because of v. 16. Biggs notes Epictetus, Plutarch, Dio
Chrysostom, Lucian, Clement of Alexander. You should read his
introduction!

Plutarch? Why is he referencing Plutarch? How could Plutarch "disagree
specifically because of v. 16"? It hadn't been written when he wrote!

Plutarch lived 45 - 125 A.D. That certainly places him within the scope
of 2 Pet. In that he wrote LIVES in 100AD, he is certainly NOT out of
time frame. Were do you come up with these assertations?

Post by Matthew Johnson
Also, I have not forgotten that EVERY time in the past when you
claimed Chrysostom supported you, you turned out to be wrong. So it
does you no good to list his name here.

That remains debated. Cranfield's analysis was right on when I
consulted my copies of the Fathers.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Either the Church was a mystery, i.e. that which was not
revealed," or it is not. Paul termed it a mystery. Thank you
very much, but I will take his word over your own.

So you say, but you have not done it yet. You take Darby's word

Never read him.

Then I guess you are not as "effecive a liar" as Darby. For you
you quote someone you have never read?

secondary source. We all do it. I don't own any of his letters. I
only have what others quote or attribute to him. BTW, I searched this
message ID and it is a quotation all of three words long.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This is the great hoax all you antidispenationalist
like to throw up.

It is no hoax. Unfortunately, you don't have to have read him to fall
into his trap. And you have read him, despite your claim here.

You are full of unsubstantiated presuppositions and faulty logic. Why
should I be surprised?

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Now where do they disagree?

Too many places to list.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Can you even give me a quote from Hal Lindsey?

I can but I wont'. Why would I?

To prove what you have just accused me of! Interesting how when
pointing the finger, you have four of them pointing back at ya.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Have you ever read
him?

Long, long ago, I read "The Late, Great Planet Earth". I try to
suppress the memory.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Besides, is he THE dispensational representative? I think not.

Then why are you claiming that he and Paul do not disagree?

Where? When? Besides, so what? Paul was a dispensationalist because
he, like the rest of the apostles and their epistles, are
millennialiarian.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Ryrie would come to for long be Lindsey.

Another non-sentence.

Sigh. "would come to fore long before." If I made mention of every
misspelling and ever grammatical error of yours, it_would_ruin_ this NG
as well. Grow up man!

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But you still have no answer for Dan 12:9.

I don't have to have an answer for what is not a question.

Teflon Man! We're going to have to come up with a theme song for you.
;-)

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
You have already displayed quite prominently that you do not know
Greek well enough to offer a "personal translation" worth anything.

And this sort of reply illustrates quite adequately why you are being
rebuked for ruining the SRC-BS NG.

No, that 'illustration' is not adequate at all. It leaves far too much
out, such as the ill-will, worse temper and theological bias of those
who do the rebuke.

It also leaves out the obviously FAR more detrimental effect on the NG
of you slinging accusations of 'gnosticism' and 'humanistic bent' in
this post -- and in many others where you toss these accusations about
with such abandon.

And oh, by the way, Loren, these false accusations are clearly _real_
"personal attacks". And far more serious than anything I have done. So
clean your finger before you try to point at my spots.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You don't merely disagree on doctrine, you turn it into a personal
affront, belittling any and all who happen to express an opinion even
a little bid different than your own.

If you must take this as a personal affront, then don't claim an
expertise you do not have. It really is that simple. Again, just as I
told Bart, an attack on someone's qualifications or character is NOT
the _fallacy_ of 'ad hominem' if the comment is _relevant_. And this
is obviously the case here. You claim an expertise you do NOT have
when you offer your own translation. This had to be pointed out. It
was completely fair to do so.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
And this is wrong, for the reasons I already explained in msg-id

It was correct enough for me get credit for in my Greek class.

That's not saying much.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It also is very close to Wuest, Alford, Vine, and my own Greek
teachers translation.

As the saying goes, close only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
as Peter argues that the OT scriptures are unmistakably reliable
as to their Divine inspiration.

'Reliable', yes. But indefinite. How were they to know that the
predicted "Prophet like unto Moses" was indeed Jesus? THAT is what was
confirmed, i.e., made 'surer' or 'firmer' by the Transfiguration.

And here is where you interpretation takes on a purely humanistic bent
to it.

Ah, yes. One of your favorite bugbears: 'humanism'. And yes, another
accusation you fling around far too lightly. No one who takes
St. Maximus as seriously as I do can be a humanist.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Your position ignores 1) alliance with scripture (the Jews were
looking for the advent of HaMashiach because the 69 weeks foretold by
Daniel's prophecy, had come to fruition)

I don't _ignore_ it; I disagree with your count of years.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
2) the required enlightenment
by the Spirit. " flesh and blood did not reveal this to you."

Nor do I over look this. On the contrary: I claim that anyone who
_has_ that enlightenment will reject your dispensationalism (at least
in this day and age).

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The Peter's argument is based upon scriptural testimony. He is
arguing for the veracity of Scripture, i.e. its authoritative
quality.

Is he? This is not what you said before. You said Scripture needs no
proof. Make up your mind.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The Mt of Transfiguration incident is of particular worth in that it
augmented the scriptural testimony while at the same time, verifying
the veracity of it.

And when did I ever say it did not do these two things? Why are you
always picking fights over topics it turns out we agree on? Could it
be because you do not really believe Scripture yourself, but love
picking fights instead (1 Tim 6:4)?

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Rather he is contrasting the "cleaverly devised tales" of the
false teachers. To study the root of this word we find a primary
meaning which includes, "a fiction which embodies the truth."

And do you have a source for this fanciful claim? Why, you have
even lost track of how many words we are talking about.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Isn't that the definition of an allegory?

No, that is not.

Let's see what THE authority on Biblical figures of speach has to
"No figure requires more careful discrimination than *Allegory.*

All the more the pity, then, that he did not _show_ this "careful
discrimination".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And it would be safer to say that there are no allegoires in
Scripture than to follow one's own judgment as to what is allegory
and what is not."

But this is ridiculous. For both approaches are clearly wrong.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
"According to the modern sense: it is taken to mean a fictitious
narrative which has another and deeper meaning than that which is
expressed."

And this is true of the ancient sense, too. But your 'authority'
doesn't even mention this.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
"Allegory is always stated in *past* tense and *never* in the future
tense.

This is sheer fiction. Bullinger insists on this for the same reason
you do: to support dispensationalism via circular reasoning.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Allegory is thus distinquished from Prophecy.

And why would I believe this? You will have to do better than
Bullinger's say-so. Even the Jesuit McKenzie gave a better definition
in his "Dictionary of the Bible", where he defines it as, "a literary
composition in which each detail signifies some reality".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The allegory brings other teaching out of past events,

This is an irresponsible generalization.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
while the prophecy tells us events that are yet to come, and means
exactly what is said."

It amazes me the way you keep on changing your definition of
'prophecy'. But of course, I should not be surprised, since you love
picking fights, even if you lose them.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
[E.W. Bullinger, "Figures of Speech Used in The Bible" p 749.]

Bullinger, the authority? Oh, give me a break.

But of course, I don't expect better from you. After all, you _would_
exalt a fellow dispensationalist as "the authority".

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
And this, BTW, is a splendid example of how it is you
who does not "know how to exegete[sic]".
If you knew how to 'exegete[sic]', you would know that 'exegete' is a
NOUN, not a VERB!

Language evolves. Get over it.

And this mutation is not part of the evolution. It is devolution.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
SNIP

Post by Matthew Johnson
Tell me, Loren: is BEBAIOTERON in attributive position, or predicate?
Do you know the difference?

And if I do, so what? If I don't, so what?

If you don't, it shows you really don't know even really basic Greek;
this in turn shows that you are in NO position to offer your own
translation. This is the point I was trying to make before when you
whined about alleged "personal affront".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I defer to the scholars who brought forth the translations I listed.
I suppose you would ask them the same question?

Yes, I would, since the native speakers of _Koine_ clearly do not
agree with them.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
"And we have the prophetic word as a surer foundation."

Well, at least they know the difference between predicate and
attributive position.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The New English translation reads: All this only confirms for us
the message of the prophets."

This is not even a translation. It is a paraphrase, and a very
loose one. You can't rely on that.

Paraphrases do not contradict the meaning of the original.

Sometimes they do. That is why I avoid them.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Rather, their presupposition, which is a correct one, is that there
is no such thing as a one-on-one translation.

This is really quite beside the point, since that 'presupposition' is
shared by tranlsations, too.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Words carry with them concepts and sometimes concepts need to be
paraphrased in order that the second language can more readily grasp
the concept. Though I rarely refer to the NE translation, it is
still afforded high marks by a great many differing theological
schools.

Not by us.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
About the only denomination not involved in this translation is
the OC.

That doesn't say much. We don't get involved in most translation
projects into English. If you heard the awful translation we use
for English you would know why;)
But we do NOT follow any English translation. We follow the
original Greek, something you give only lip-service to.

Why was the NT written in Greek? Why was all but 7 chapters of the
OT written in Hebrew? Why were those 7 particular chapters written
in Aramaic? Because at the time, they were the common venacular of
the people. Therefore it is rather sophist to insist on only a Greek
"translation."

That does not follow. Why, it doesn't even make sense. The Greek NT is
not a translation!

Post by l***@hotmail.com
If the Great Commission was to "go into all the world" then obviously
that includes to "all tongues." Rather, what you represent, whether
it is OC doctrine or not, is just another form of gnosticism. Pride.

No, Loren, it is NOT "another form of gnosticism". And the real pride
is in your repeated false accusation of gnosticism.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Even my Oxford Bible reads The Lockman Foundation translation
So you, my friend, stand in the minority.

So are we chiliasts. It has the historical authority.

We have been over this before. No, it does not.

[snip]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
But it is a _good_ minority, since unlike you array of 'scholars',
it includes native speakers of Koine Greek. The testimony of
Theophylact outweighs your "150 Gk scholars" any day of the week.

This is a false analysis of what is concerned.

No, it is not. Your mention of "5000 transcripts" OTOH, really is a
false analysis.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
We have over 5000 transcripts from which to draw testimony from.

Surely you mean 'manuscripts', not 'transcripts'.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
What did Theophylact or the early fathers have?

They had many early manuscripts that have since been lost -- or
destroyed by your ancestors who burned libraries in barbarian raids.

Besides: on this passage Theophyact's text was identical to UBS4.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The "native speaker" trump card you like to lay out from time to
time, is not the "bower power" you imagine it to be.

Whether or not it is 'bower power' is quite beside the point.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You are far too simplistic in your analysis and resulting conclusion.
I'll take the 150 scholars working off of 5000+ transcripts and
2000yrs of linquistic analysis over your "native speakers" and their
limited resources.

You do NOT have 150 scholars agreeing with your translation of this
verse. The number of 'transcripts' they used is totally
irrelevant. And no, they do not even have 2000yrs of linguistic
analysis. So this _entire_ paragraph is without substance. It is just
an attempt to wow people with specious numbers.

[snip]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
Which 'review' you did not include. But perhaps that is for the best,
since it is so unlikely to be relevant.

Teflon Man!

I don't even need to be 'teflon man' for your reasoning to fail to
stick. Your 'reasoning' really is too weak to stick to anything.

[snip]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
Also, I have not forgotten that EVERY time in the past when you
claimed Chrysostom supported you, you turned out to be wrong. So it
does you no good to list his name here.

That remains debated.

No, it does not. It can verified in Google archives. It is tedious,
but straightforward to see that EVERY single time you included
Chrysostom's name in your list of alleged supporters, you
misunderstood: he did NOT support you.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Cranfield's analysis was right on when I consulted my copies of the
Fathers.

Then why haven't you quoted the relevant passages? I already gave you
passages from the Fathers that do not agree with Cranfield.

Sounds like more Loren chest-thumping to me.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Either the Church was a mystery, i.e. that which was not
revealed," or it is not. Paul termed it a mystery. Thank you
very much, but I will take his word over your own.

So you say, but you have not done it yet. You take Darby's word

Never read him.

Then I guess you are not as "effecive a liar" as Darby. For you
you quote someone you have never read?

secondary source.

Which you did not give attribution to. How splendid.

Face it, Loren. You are the one who keeps getting yourself into
trouble by failing to give proper attribution in these threads.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
We all do it.

Not without giving attribution, we don't. Only careless people and
dissemblers do that.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I don't own any of his letters. I only have what others quote or
attribute to him. BTW, I searched this message ID and it is a
quotation all of three words long.

That is enough to disprove your claim to have never read him.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This is the great hoax all you antidispenationalist
like to throw up.

It is no hoax. Unfortunately, you don't have to have read him to fall
into his trap. And you have read him, despite your claim here.

You are full of unsubstantiated presuppositions and faulty logic.

If it is my logic that is faulty, why is it that you are the one who
never has a rebuttal that holds water?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Why should I be surprised?

You should be surprised, because it is false.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Now where do they disagree?

Too many places to list.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Can you even give me a quote from Hal Lindsey?

I can but I wont'. Why would I?

To prove what you have just accused me of!

But it would NOT prove it.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Interesting how when pointing the finger, you have four of them
pointing back at ya.

Thanks for illustrating the level of sophistication of your argument.

[snip]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Ryrie would come to for long be Lindsey.

Another non-sentence.

Sigh. "would come to fore long before." If I made mention of every
misspelling and ever grammatical error of yours, it_would_ruin_ this NG
as well.

Nonsense. Not only are mine much rarer than yours, but it is even more
rare that the mangle the sentence as badly as yours do.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Grow up man!

Once more, it is time to practice what you preach. Those of us who
_have_ grown up learn to avoid the careless mistake you make in your
heated responses.

[snip]