Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221361 | ||
Keily, Forgive me, I must have been unclear. I am not at all suggesting that I read rev 20:1-3 literally. Quite the opposite. What I am saying is that a person must make a choice. Look at Matthew 25. Actually go look at it so you see what I'm referring to. The judgement here is clearly depicting one judgement of both the saved and unsaved in one event. The traditional dispensational reading of revelation 20 places the judgements 1000 years apart. Now you must make a choice. Which passage are you going to read literally and which is not literal? I could press you on matthew 25 with the same accusations you place against me regarding revelation 20. The truth be told, one of them is not intending the reader to understand it literally. My point is this, if you choose to read Rev 20 literally, you must say not only matthew 25, but MANY other passages are not literal. The question is this: which do you want to say is literal, either half a dozen passages from almost every genre in scripture, or a single passage in Rev? Do you see the choice now? You can't pass yourself off as somebody who reads scripture literally while the amill person does not. The truth is we MUST both claim something is not being understood literally. Anyways, I'm happy to let the discussion end, I just would be dissapointed if you left not understanding the view I'm trying to articulate due to my short comings in explaining it. After all, I'm attempting to express to you a view that has been around for 2,000 years, not simply my own personal take on scripture. I'd feel bad messing that up for you and other readers. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
2 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | keliy | 221362 | ||
Dear Beja, Thank you, no apologies are necessary whatsoever. It is very hard to come to agreement on a Forum such as this, and not talking face to face. As I said earlier, this should not be a devisive issue, so I do not wish to just go separate ways on this, but remain as christian participants in an ongoing discussion that has not been concluded as of yet. It is best to agree to disagree for now and let the Spirit work in us as our Lord sees fit. I feel bad if I took up too much of your time, most pastors have this day off. I know, God's work is never done, but as humans allof us need a balance. So lets leave the subject open for discussion in another thread. Agreed ? Lord Bless keliy |
||||||
3 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | lightedsteps | 221363 | ||
Hey Guys Beja, keily I Have been enjoying the discussion. Could there be any chance of the possibility that from Matt.25:34...to ...Matt.25:41 there could be the 1,000 yrs. being spoken of? What I mean, there is just an account of two separate events taking place, without any mention of time. The judgement depicted in Matt.25 is clearly one judgement for both the saved, and the unsaved in one event. But these two judgements, could be 1000 years apart, couldn't they? Just a thought. lightedsteps. |
||||||
4 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221365 | ||
Lightedsteps, Glad you enjoyed the discussion. If one is going to hold to a literal interpretation of Rev 20, then you'd have to read Mat 25 that way, yes? But wouldn't you say we would then be reading that into the text based on what we believe elsewhere in scripture? And that very well could be right. But is the amillenial interpretation of Rev 20 really doing anymore violence to the text than the other view is then doing to matthew 25? All I am suggesting is lets be fair. If you are amillenial, then you can't take rev 20 word for word literally. If you are not amillenial, then you also have passages you can't take word for word literally. Lets not accuse either side of being irresponsible with the text. In the end, we all interpret scripture in light of other scripture. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
5 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | lightedsteps | 221369 | ||
Hi again guys Beja, keily I'm not an "Amillennialist" --- "PREmillennialist" --- or even a "POSTmillenialist" I am one that could be called a "PANmillenialist" I fully trust in Gods plan for mankind, and that He hasn't made any mistakes thus far. Therefore I believe everything will PAN-OUT alright.:-) When it is time, Our Father, will make sure, His Children will know what is taking place. Just on a side note, when we read the fulfillment of prophesy, it is a literal fulfillment, ie, Jesus fulfilled prophesy literally, therefor how can we read a prophesy, that has not been fulfilled yet in a spiritual, or allegorical sense? Grace be unto you lightedsteps |
||||||
6 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221377 | ||
Lightedsteps, I'm assuming the question is for me since I think Keily would agree with you. My answer is that I think you are confusing the genres here. Revelation is not simple prophecy but apocalyptic literature. Were the four beasts that Daniel saw meant to be understood literally? Should we still be watching for them to appear? What about the scroll in Zechariah 5? Are we still waiting to see a 20 cubit long flying scroll fly through the air or should we say that he is trying to convey something with that image other than literally a flying scroll? What about the valley of bones in Ezekiel? Do we understand that as we are literally waiting to see a large pile of bones come to life or is it representing something else whether that be the new birth or the reformation of national Israel? My point is that just because messianic prophecies are fullfilled literally it does not follow that all scripture is meant to be taken literally. I'm not suggesting that we get to randomly pick and choose which is literal and which isn't. But if a text is not meant to be taken literally, then to read it as such is to read it wrongly. Hope this helps. Just as a tid bit for thought, listen to this quote by Eusebius, who if I'm not mistaken writes the earliest attempt at a history of the church. He wrote this around 310 AD "Papias supplies other stories that had reached him by word of mouth, along with some other strange parables and unknown teachings of the Savior, as well as other legendary accounts. Among them he says that after the resurrection of the dead there will be a thousand year period when the kingdom of Christ will be established on this earth in material form. I suppose that he got these notions by misunderstanding the apostolic accounts, not realizing that they used mystic and symbolic language. For he was a man of very limited intelligence as is clear from his books" Interesting that now Christians regard it as such a strange thing! In Christ, Beja |
||||||