The Book of Revelation: Mystery Or Profitable?

[Arial]

The problem is, again, as Clete has pointed out, that John, the author of Revelation, along with Peter and James, agreed to go ONLY the Circumcision (Israel), while Paul went to the uncircumcision (Gentiles).

Thus, the literal opposite of what you said is more likely, which is that there may have been some gentiles in the churches, but they would have been primarily Jews/Jewish believers.

In short, scripture contradicts your claim. History contradicts your claim.

That's two witnesses. Scripture says two or three witnesses to establish a matter.

I disagree with your "reasoning" and your claim. I have found otherwise in my research. Plus we have this: Gal 2:7-8 the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effective in me toward the Gentiles. This simply states that each apostle went where God appointed them to go, for whatever reasons, and was what He equipped them to do. And it does not say they went ONLY to the Jews and the scriptures bear out that they didn't go ONLY to the Jews or that Paul went ONLY to the Gentiles. ONLY is your word and your conclusion. But as I told Clete, that is not what this thread is about and I do not want to have it DERAILED into that discussion. Keep your contributions to the subject.

 

[Arial]

Revelation 5:9
And they sang a new song: "Worthy are You to take the scroll and open its seals, because You were slain, and by Your blood You purchased for God those from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

Revelation 10:10
So I took the small scroll from the angel's hand and ate it; and it was as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned bitter.

King James Bible
And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

On the new song. I have learned recently that when the Bible mentions a new song it refers to a song of victory that would be sung after a battle was won.

 

[Arial]

I'm seeing the Gospel of the Kingdom being preached that requires faith and commandment observance (works). That isn't Paul's Gospel.

This seems to contradict the quote below.

There is one Gospel of Salvation...by grace through faith for Jews and Gentiles....during this church age, this age of Grace.

Give me scriptures that speak of the church age.

But that isn't the Gospel Jesus was preaching. He and the apostles were preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom....which was God's Kingdom on earth where Jesus would rule on the throne. He was rejected and crucified instead.

Uhhh. The gospel of the kingdom? What kingdom are you speaking of? God's kingdom is in heaven and within the believer. It comes in its fullness with the second coming of Christ. It isn't on earth for a thousand years in the nation state of Israel and then there is another great battle and after that it comes again.

The Jews were given the Law and were expected to follow it.
In fact the law was the schoolmaster that led people to Christ.
Now we are led by the Spirit and not bound by the commandments....that could only condemn us to death

Jesus on earth was preaching to the Jews that they could not keep all the commandments, and even when they thought they were, they weren't. He showed them the heart and faith that are within the law, that they refused to see and violated constantly. He showed them that the law would condemn them to the power of the second death. He did it. Kept the law and the commandments perfectly in the place of all those who would trust in Him to do this, rather than trusting themselves to do it, by keeping the law. Not only for the Jew but also for the Gentile who couldn't keep it either, weren't even given the law but condemned by it anyway because of sin. We are led by the Spirit because we have been joined to Christ through faith in His person and work, and therefore we produce the fruit of the Spirit which is obedience to God, and are progressively sanctified by the Spirit. And because Christ's righteousness is counted as though it were ours, when we do sin, it does not condemn us to the power of the second death.

Thank the Lord the Bible does not do what you suggest, because then man could make the Bible say whatever he wanted it to. This way we have to study and let the Holy Spirit give us insight.

Wow!

 

[JudgeRightly]

I disagree with your "reasoning" and your claim.

I don't care unless you can show why the reasons I have presented are wrong.

I have found otherwise in my research.

No, you haven't.

Plus we have this: Gal 2:7-8 the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effective in me toward the Gentiles.

Yes, that's the verse I was using to support my argument.

This simply states that each apostle went where God appointed them to go, for whatever reasons, and was what He equipped them to do.

No, it's not.

It's Paul, and Peter, James, and John, agreeing with each other that Paul should go to the uncircumcised, and Peter, James, John, and the other twelve, should go to the circumcised.

Remember, this is FOURTEEN YEARS after Paul's conversion.

And it does not say they went ONLY to the Jews and the scriptures bear out that they didn't go ONLY to the Jews or that Paul went ONLY to the Gentiles. ONLY is your word and your conclusion.

You're right. I overstated my case. But my point remains.

Paul said he would go to the gentiles.
Peter, James, and John said they would go to the Jews.

John, therefore, several years AFTER that agreement, in writing to the churches in Smyrna, Thyatira, Laodicea, Philadelphia, Sardis, Pergamos, and Ephesus, was writing to the Jews, the circumcision, who lived in those cities.

But as I told Clete, that is not what this thread is about and I do not want to have it DERAILED into that discussion. Keep your contributions to the subject.

It is entirely relevant to the discussion. You CANNOT understand Revelation if you don't have an understanding of who it's written TO and ABOUT.

 

[Arial]

It is entirely relevant to the discussion.

No. It is not. I am not speaking of anyone's personal opinion of Revelation. I am presenting a specific possible way of viewing Revelation for discussion. We know that John wrote Revelation. We know that he wrote it to the seven churches of Smyrna. If it was relevant to know the percentage of Jews and the percentage of Gentiles, we would have been told that. What you are doing is simply trying to justify your particular view and interpretation by an irrelevant rabbit trail about what apostles were preaching to what ethnic peoples. I did not start this thread so that those who disagree with what I present can come in and fight about every irrelevant and unnecessary detail that isn't even in Revelation.

 

[Tambora]

Answer the question, Tambora....

First, you are not the boss of how I discuss a topic or what questions I answer or ask.
Second, answering a question with question is not an invalid way to answer a question.
You know that, so your demand is useless.

Do you believe that there was salvation for gentiles apart from Israel?

In the sense that a Gentile had to literally join Israel, yes.
In the sense that Christ had to be a descendant of Israel, no.

Was Paul wrong when he told the Ephesians....

Ephesians 2:12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

There were generations of people long before there was ever an Israel for them to join.
There was no Israel for Adam or any of his descendants (Seth, Enoch, Noah, etc) to join before there was an Israel.

And as already shown per scripture, Namaan did not have to join Israel to be accepted by God.
He had the faith that YHWH was the only Most High God to depend on.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No. It is not.

Yes, it is.

I am not speaking of anyone's personal opinion of Revelation.

Neither am I, nor is Clete.

I am presenting a specific possible way of viewing Revelation for discussion.

Possible only in the sense that it's just one interpretation.

However, there is only one TRULY possible way of viewing Revelation CORRECTLY. If you're resistant to one view just because you don't like it, or you think it's irrelevant, or unnecessary, then you run the risk of confirmation bias, and that you will never achieve a proper understanding of scripture.

I assert that Jesus (through John of course) was writing to Jews in the seven churches.

I have presented multiple pieces of evidence for this premise. You have rejected all of it with nothing but logical fallacies and baseless assertions.

Just try to prove us wrong!

Until then, you truly will never understand all the details, and while it's not a necessity for your daily walk with Christ, not understanding what is written (and I assure you it CAN be understood) will lead to you being unable to provide a reason for the hope that is within you. (1 Peter 3:15)

We know that John wrote Revelation.

No argument.

We know that he wrote it to the seven churches of Smyrna.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you meant "Asia" and not "Smyrna" here.

If it was relevant to know the percentage of Jews and the percentage of Gentiles, we would have been told that.

It IS relevant to know which of the two John is writing to, because it makes a HUGE difference!!!

It's the difference between replacement theology and mid-acts dispensationalism! Two VERY different theological viewpoints!

What you are doing is simply trying to justify your particular view

That's how discussion works, Ariel. If you don't like it, then why are you even here?

and interpretation by an irrelevant rabbit trail

Saying it doesn't make it so, and both Clete and I have given you evidence to suggest that it is completely necessary to know WHO an author is writing to in order to understand what is being said and why.

about what apostles were preaching to what ethnic peoples.

"Christians" are not an ethnic people, in and of themselves.

Jews are.

Scripture says John agreed to go to the people of the circumcision.

That DOES NOT INCLUDE Christians, whom Paul specifically tells NOT to circumcise for religious reasons (as Israel does). (Things that are different are not the same...)

John didn't violate that agreement when he wrote Revelation. In fact, the entire reason we DON'T find letters written by the Twelve to Christian believers (despite the likelihood of their existence), is because there's a reason the Bible is written the way it is. See below.

By saying John wrote to Christians, in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile, then you're calling John a renegger, a liar.

I did not start this thread so that those who disagree with what I present can come in and fight about every irrelevant and unnecessary

Saying it doesn't make it so. They ARE relevant, and COMPLETELY necessary to understanding the book as a whole, and Clete and I have shown you why.

detail that isn't even in Revelation.

Here's the problem with your complaining: Revelation is part of the Bible.

So is Colossians, so is Galatians, so is every other book in the Bible. The whole Bible tells a story. When you ignore the story it tells in favor of your own personal beliefs, you WILL NOT be able to fully understand what is written.

Thus, when you talk about Revelation, you invite discussion about the relevant portions of scripture to it, which INCLUDES the rest of the Bible.

By only allowing discussion of one book of the Bible and one book alone, it's no wonder you "will never understand fully all the details."

 

[Tambora]

By saying John wrote to Christians, in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile, then you're calling John a renegger, a liar.

Actually, Paul would be declaring John accursed if he was preaching another gospel than the gospel Paul preached.

Galatians 1:8-9 ESV​

(8) But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.​

(9) As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.​

Was John (and Peter, James, etc.) accursed?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

On the new song. I have learned recently that when the Bible mentions a new song it refers to a song of victory that would be sung after a battle was won.

I reckon ya mighta seen my last post to E before PJ banned me yesterday.
Jesus came to serve me, as well as let me ride his victory.

 

[Clete]

No. It is not. I am not speaking of anyone's personal opinion of Revelation. I am presenting a specific possible way of viewing Revelation for discussion. We know that John wrote Revelation. We know that he wrote it to the seven churches of Smyrna. If it was relevant to know the percentage of Jews and the percentage of Gentiles, we would have been told that.

We were told that! The Apostles in Jerusalem had a meeting with Paul, who was instructed to attend BY REVELATION no less (Gal. 2:2), where they heard the gospel that Paul was preaching and then agreed with Paul that they (Peter, James, John, etc) would minister the Gospel of Circumcision to the Circumcision (i.e. to believing Israel) and Paul would minister the Gospel of Uncircumcision to the Gentiles.

What you are doing is simply trying to justify your particular view and interpretation by an irrelevant rabbit trail about what apostles were preaching to what ethnic peoples. I did not start this thread so that those who disagree with what I present can come in and fight about every irrelevant and unnecessary detail that isn't even in Revelation.

Our point here is that this distinction between John's ministry and that of Paul's is not a trivial or irrelevant piece of contextual information. It bares directly on what YOU are saying here. There is a reason why YOU brought up that these seven churches were both Jewish and Gentile in the opening post and there's a reason you want to reject our position out of hand. That reason is that your interpretation doesn't work if John's writings don't apply (directly) to us in the Body of Christ.

If you understand that the letters written to the seven churches are someone else's mail then it makes a big difference in YOUR interpretation of those letters as well as the rest of the book or Revelation. Which is not to say that everything in the OP is entirely wrong. We do win in the end and it is entirely appropriate to take assurance from not only that fact but that God understands where things are headed and that we are therefore not in this alone. And I don't find much at all, if anything, to disagree with in the second post of the thread either but, even you must see the overwhelming references to Israel in that second post. In that one quite short post, you mention, "Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah; the second coming of Christ ("Christ" means "Messiah"); New Jerusalem; the 144,000 (all Jews); the 1000 years (i.e. the Millennial reign of Christ from Jerusalem, Israel).

However, statements like....
"Revelation repeats in symbolic form the message that is the rest of the NT."

and....

"And we can see clearly that all these things written to the seven churches is also applicable to this very day, and has been throughout all of the time between the resurrection and "now" and will continue to be so until Christ's second coming."

are just flatly false and lead to countless, seemingly unrelated, errors touching nearly every aspect of Christian doctrine, not the least of which is eschatology! You very simply cannot rightly understand John's Revelation if you are reading it thinking that it applies directly to us in the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ won't even be present, nor will the gospel of grace be preached at all during the events spoken of in Revelation.

Clete

 

[Arial]

I reckon ya mighta seen my last post to E before PJ banned me yesterday.
Jesus came to serve me, as well as let me ride his victory.

No. I haven't been of that site---since I left a month or so ago---because of E. I'll go look. It could have been good but E wrecked it.

 

[Arial]

However, there is only one TRULY possible way of viewing Revelation CORRECTLY. If you're resistant to one view just because you don't like it, or you think it's irrelevant, or unnecessary, then you run the risk of confirmation bias, and that you will never achieve a proper understanding of scripture.

In the four interpretive schools of thought, a combination of these views is most likely closest to the truth. Anyone who claims to have the book of Revelation all figured out and set in stone, is kidding themselves. Not everything has been revealed to us by God, but everything we need to have revealed in order for us to understand what He is telling us and giving to us, and for His purpose, is revealed. That is also true with the book of Revelation.

In the following post I will be mostly focused on the amillennial/ idealism viewpoint and contrasting it somewhat to premillennialism/futurist view.

I assert that Jesus (through John of course) was writing to Jews in the seven churches.

I have presented multiple pieces of evidence for this premise. You have rejected all of it with nothing but logical fallacies and baseless assertions.

Just try to prove us wrong!

Until then, you truly will never understand all the details, and while it's not a necessity for your daily walk with Christ, not understanding what is written (and I assure you it CAN be understood) will lead to you being unable to provide a reason for the hope that is within you. (1 Peter 3:15)

Think about it. If John were writing to the churches in Asia and some of those people he wrote to were Jews and some were Gentiles, what purpose could it serve to the Gentiles, and how were the Gentiles to know none of it applied to them? And does it not occur to you, that if what you say is true, John, who in this and his other writings is very careful as to what he is writing to make it specific and understandable, would have said "To the Jews in the churches in Asia,"? And if Revelation is only for Jewish Christians, why did God in His providence see that it is in the Christian Bible meant for all nations and tribes and languages and peoples? And do you also see how far off the OP topic this has gone? Do you have anything to say that actually pertains to what is in the book of Revelation?

It IS relevant to know which of the two John is writing to, because it makes a HUGE difference!!!

It's the difference between replacement theology and mid-acts dispensationalism! Two VERY different theological viewpoints!

I do not even know how you arrive at such a conclusion that if a person doesn't agree with MAD then they believe in replacement theology. Which I don't btw--to either of those things.

Saying it doesn't make it so, and

evidence to suggest

is completely necessary

understand what i

being said and why.

The above five quotes are an example of your propensity to split one sentence into several parts in order to give an answer. It makes your post longer, which if that is your goal then I understand. Otherwise it suggests perhaps a short attention span and difficulty with retention.

"Christians" are not an ethnic people, in and of themselves.

Jews are.

Brilliant!

That DOES NOT INCLUDE Christians, whom Paul specifically tells NOT to circumcise for religious reasons (as Israel does). (Things that are different are not the same...)

John didn't violate that agreement when he wrote Revelation. In fact, the entire reason we DON'T find letters written by the Twelve to Christian believers (despite the likelihood of their existence), is because there's a reason the Bible is written the way it is. See below.

By saying John wrote to Christians, in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile, then you're calling John a renegger, a liar.

Saying it doesn't make it so and that begs the question.
Oh. Are you waiting for the question that should follow that last remark? Sorry. I just thought it sounded intelligent.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

This is true. You should remember that.

As to the rest of your post, I have not yet heard anything that pertains to the actual content of Revelation, which is the subject of this thread. Exploring its content. If you can't provide any, I suggest rather than derail this thread, you begin your own on the very subject you keep addressing in mine. God speed.

 

[chrysostom]

Do you have anything to say that actually pertains to what is in the book of Revelation?

Good question.

 

[Right Divider]

Actually, Paul would be declaring John accursed if he was preaching another gospel than the gospel Paul preached.

Galatians 1:8-9 ESV​

(8) But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.​

(9) As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.​

Was John (and Peter, James, etc.) accursed?

Please note the AUDIENCE that Paul is telling this to: https://theologyonline.com/threads/another-gospel-in-galatians-1.52439/

Many claim that Galatians 1 precludes multiple gospels. But it's simply them ignoring context as is too typical of many.

Gal 1:6-9 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:6) I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (1:7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. (1:8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (1:9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

There is a specific audience involved here. Once you take that into account, there is no problem at all.

 

[Arial]

@Clete
Before I address your post (and it is the last one I will address that is off topic and attempts to take my thread into territory that I, not you, determine is irrelevant to my purpose and divisive and purely argumentative) let me once more state my intention and purpose. I am presenting a particular school of thought, idealism. Present: as a verb. to offer to view (show). Intransitive verb, to make a presentation. Within that interpretive school of thought (idealism) there is a specific view of the millennium (amillennialism) which will come up as it is one of the major factors in the interpretation of Revelation associated with idealism. Therefore, contrasting it with premillennialism, helps to clarify what amillennialism is through the comparison. It is not a discussion of dispensationalism, even if that view comes up, certainly not a discussion of open theism. It is not a discussion on Jew vs Gentile, and is not concerned with "proof" being established that Jews were John's audience by isolating one scripture from the book of Acts. One that is used to support a loved belief without taking into account any thing else in scripture that is staring one right in the face. And which, because of that, distorts much of scripture from its clear meaning and from God's purpose in giving it to us. And without recognizing any possibility that there are other ways to see that one scripture. I am not saying that this way (idealism) is 100% on the money (no view or interpretation is) or that I believe blindly all that I present. I am presenting something for people, including myself, to ponder and comment on, if they are interested.

 

[Arial]

We were told that! The Apostles in Jerusalem had a meeting with Paul, who was instructed to attend BY REVELATION no less (Gal. 2:2), where they heard the gospel that Paul was preaching and then agreed with Paul that they (Peter, James, John, etc) would minister the Gospel of Circumcision to the Circumcision (i.e. to believing Israel) and Paul would minister the Gospel of Uncircumcision to the Gentiles.

Try reading the whole chapter of Gal 2. Then go read Acts 15 which is what Paul is referring to. And try to understand the possibility that Paul's appointed ministry was quite different than the appointed ministry of James and Peter and John. Since that is the case as we see clearly in scripture, not least in the book of Acts, there is a much more likely meaning to Paul going to the Gentiles and the others to Israel. Paul traveled outside of Israel, taking the gospel to those outside Israel, while the others stayed at home and preached the gospel there.

Our point here is that this distinction between John's ministry and that of Paul's is not a trivial or irrelevant piece of contextual information. It bares directly on what YOU are saying here. There is a reason why YOU brought up that these seven churches were both Jewish and Gentile in the opening post and there's a reason you want to reject our position out of hand. That reason is that your interpretation doesn't work if John's writings don't apply (directly) to us in the Body of Christ.

Actually what you are doing is making a distinction between believers; that of Jew or Gentile. I don't do that, and neither does the interpretive view that I am presenting, and neither does Revelation or any of the epistles. Not even John and Peter and James. If you see it that way, there is nothing I can do to change that, neither do I want to. You are entitled to believe whatever you want. Just don't try and ram your beliefs down my throat in my thread. It is irrelevant to the thread, no matter what you say. I brought up Jew and Gentile for the very reasons that, first, it is true, and second because I am aware of the school of thought that says that there is a third age other than this age and the one to come, which is dealing with Israel only. This school of thought does not exist in idealism, which is what I am presenting. Idealism rejects that position. That is my reason, not what you have told me is my reason.

However, statements like....
"Revelation repeats in symbolic form the message that is the rest of the NT."

and....

"And we can see clearly that all these things written to the seven churches is also applicable to this very day, and has been throughout all of the time between the resurrection and "now" and will continue to be so until Christ's second coming."

are just flatly false and lead to countless, seemingly unrelated, errors touching nearly every aspect of Christian doctrine, not the least of which is eschatology! You very simply cannot rightly understand John's Revelation if you are reading it thinking that it applies directly to us in the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ won't even be present, nor will the gospel of grace be preached at all during the events spoken of in Revelation.

Try it this way: Revelation confirms all other teaching of the truths in the NT, not contradicting any truth found there or adding brand new truth that isn't taught elsewhere. Often in symbolic form it reveals a different angle to see these truths.

I say that because according to the idealist view that I am presenting, and that understanding of the millennium, this is true.

If something is flatly false according to you, and you say that "outloud", and that this falsity, whatever it may be, leads to seemingly unrelated errors that touch nearly every aspect of Christian doctrine, don't you think that a more explicit and specific, and supported, accusation should be made? Especially from someone who says to everyone else, "saying it doesn't make it so." I am quite sure such an outlook as is presented in the idealist interpretive school would turn everything you believe, that which you have stated in any case, on its head. But that is beside the point. And please don't attempt to do the explicit, specific and supported thing here as it would involve the entire Bible and derailing in a thousand directions (thousand used here symbolically to represent a large number). However, you could start your own thread: something along the lines of "Refuting Idealism With Scripture". I might even join in.

 

[chrysostom]

However, you could start your own thread: something along the lines of "Refuting Idealism With Scripture". I might even join in.

I have already done that. Idealism is only reasonable if you can't find it in history. I found it. You are welcome to join.

 

[Clete]

@Clete
Before I address your post (and it is the last one I will address that is off topic and attempts to take my thread into territory that I, not you, determine is irrelevant to my purpose and divisive and purely argumentative) let me once more state my intention and purpose.

Look, if you don't want to talk about it then don't but something is not irrelevant by virtue of the fact that you declare it to be so. It's not like I ever had any delusions of ever convincing you of anything in the first place.

I am presenting a particular school of thought, idealism.

So what?

If you were half as intellectually honest as you pretend to be and were actually interested in doing something other than presenting your own doctrine to people and wanted to actually discuss this idealism and its implications then you'd respond to what I and other's have said about your missing / ignoring of important contextual biblical facts with an interest in how that might effect this idealism of yours. Instead, you assume that all we are here to do is to derail your precious thread with what you arbitrarily declare to be irrelevancies.

Present: as a verb. to offer to view (show). Intransitive verb, to make a presentation. Within that interpretive school of thought (idealism) there is a specific view of the millennium (amillennialism) which will come up as it is one of the major factors in the interpretation of Revelation associated with idealism. Therefore, contrasting it with premillennialism, helps to clarify what amillennialism is through the comparison. It is not a discussion of dispensationalism, even if that view comes up, certainly not a discussion of open theism.

Indirectly it is a discussion about all of those things, most especially dispensationalism. Just because you want to make a presentation that arbitrarily presupposes that dispensationalism is false doesn't mean that dispensationalists are wrong, nor does it mean that we aren't allowed to bring it up, nor that doing so is inherently hostile, personally insulting or irrelevant!

It is not a discussion on Jew vs Gentile, and is not concerned with "proof" being established that Jews were John's audience by isolating one scripture from the book of Acts.

Who has isolated one scripture from the book of Acts? I haven't even quoted Acts at all that I recall. The scripture I have cited you've either arbitrarily declared as irrelevant or simply ignored completely, including passages in the very book you started the thread to discuss!

One that is used to support a loved belief without taking into account any thing else in scripture that is staring one right in the face. And which, because of that, distorts much of scripture from its clear meaning and from God's purpose in giving it to us.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Ariel.

On the contrary, one of the strongest arguments in favor of dispensationalism, and Mid-Acts Dispensationalism in particular, is precisely the fact that those who adhere to it are able to read the bible and take it mean what it seems to mean. There is plenty of symbolic language and allegory in the bible but far less than most Christians believe and it is dispensationalism that requires the least of any other doctrinal system. For the most part, so long as you keep in mind God's dispensational framework (i.e. the context), all one needs to do to understand the bible is to read it.

And without recognizing any possibility that there are other ways to see that one scripture.

This isn't so. I'd love it if I could find someone who was both able and willing to present an argument that establishes that passages like Galatians 2:7-9 don't mean what they seem to mean. That would be an interesting debate. But there isn't anyone on this website that fits that description.

I am not saying that this way (idealism) is 100% on the money (no view or interpretation is) or that I believe blindly all that I present. I am presenting something for people, including myself, to ponder and comment on, if they are interested.

Great! I like that! That's just what this site is all about.

Idealism, as you've presented it, cannot be correct (in large measure) because it ignores the context of the book of Revelation in that it ignores the decidedly and undeniably clear Jewish flavor of the book as well as the fact that it was written by an Apostle who specifically and explicitly agreed to limit his ministry to the Circumcision.

Now, you can pretend like that's irrelevant if you want and you can go on discussing Idealism until you're blue in the face but it won't change the fact that dispensationalism is, at the very least, a major challenge to what you propose and that, for whatever reason, you are unwilling to explore any avenue around that problem other than to arbitrarily dismiss it out of hand.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Try reading the whole chapter of Gal 2. Then go read Acts 15 which is what Paul is referring to. And try to understand the possibility that Paul's appointed ministry was quite different than the appointed ministry of James and Peter and John. Since that is the case as we see clearly in scripture, not least in the book of Acts, there is a much more likely meaning to Paul going to the Gentiles and the others to Israel. Paul traveled outside of Israel, taking the gospel to those outside Israel, while the others stayed at home and preached the gospel there.

Who is it here who's being hostile again? Sheesh!

I've read Galatians so many times that I have literally lost count - along with the whole rest of the bible, by the way.

And it isn't merely that Paul went to the Gentiles, it's that he had to tell the Twelve what gospel he was preaching! He wasn't summoned to Israel by the Twelve, he was sent there by revelation (i.e. by God) to communicate to the Twelve that gospel which He had not been taught by man but had received by revelation. The gospel which Paul and ONLY Paul refers to as "my gospel" and which Galatians 2 calls "the gospel of uncircumcision" in contrast to "the gospel of circumcision" which had been committed to Peter.

If the gospel that Paul was preaching was the same as that of the Twelve and only the audience was different then why give it two different names and where was the need for the meeting to take place at all and what possible purpose could it have served to have the all the apostles but one minister to Israel while only Paul and a few of his helpers go out to the rest of the whole world? Why would the Twelve have agreed to forgo the so called great commission, choosing instead to minister only to the Circumcision (i.e. Israel) while sending Paul, a man who hadn't followed Christ from the beginning as all the Twelve had done, including Matthias, by the way (Acts 1:21-22)?

And that is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to distinctions that can be drawn between Paul's ministry and that of Peter, James and John! In short, the question that no Christian who isn't a dispensationalist can give a coherent answer to is, "Why Paul?" Why did Paul's ministry exist at all?

Actually what you are doing is making a distinction between believers; that of Jew or Gentile. I don't do that, and neither does the interpretive view that I am presenting, and neither does Revelation or any of the epistles. Not even John and Peter and James.

Saying it doesn't make it so. If you could establish this claim then it would a long way toward refuting our objection to your thesis but you can't and you won't even make any attempt to do so. The entire reason the Jerusalem counsel took place is precisely because there was a distinction between Jew and Gentile for EVERYONE other than Paul! That's just the exact purpose of the whole meeting! Not to mention the fact the Paul had to get into Peter's face precisely because he was making the exact distinction you say doesn't exist in response to "men from James" having arrived.

If you see it that way, there is nothing I can do to change that, neither do I want to.

The fact that you don't want to is undoubtedly true but, unlike all the other dullards on this website, I am quite open to being shown otherwise. All it takes is for you to make the argument. Maybe it will stand up and maybe it won't but, regardless, to say that there's nothing you can do about it is false. You can, you just don't want to.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want. Just don't try and ram your beliefs down my throat in my thread.

This is a debate forum, Ariel. It is not your private blog cite. If I read something on this debate forum that I want to debate then I will do so. If you don't like it then I invite you to go start your own cite where you get to make the rules.

It is irrelevant to the thread, no matter what you say.

Really? NO MATTER WHAT I SAY?

Who says, you?

Who are you?

Who died and made you the arbiter of truth and reason? It is not only relevant but it's relevance has been repeatedly established both with rational arguments and with the very scripture you purport to be debating!

I brought up Jew and Gentile for the very reasons that, first, it is true, and second because I am aware of the school of thought that says that there is a third age other than this age and the one to come, which is dealing with Israel only. This school of thought does not exist in idealism, which is what I am presenting. Idealism rejects that position. That is my reason, not what you have told me is my reason.

Yeah, except that this is essentially what I just told you was your reason. Your "idealism" is predicated on an a priori and arbitrary rejection of dispensationalism.

Try it this way: Revelation confirms all other teaching of the truths in the NT, not contradicting any truth found there or adding brand new truth that isn't taught elsewhere. Often in symbolic form it reveals a different angle to see these truths.

I say that because according to the idealist view that I am presenting, and that understanding of the millennium, this is true.

That is, at the very least, an over statement of the truth. Where else do we read about a New Heaven, a New Earth and New Jerusalem descending from Heaven or of Satan being held for a thousand years and then released or of the anti-christ? Seems to me like there's an awful lot of new stuff introduced in John's Revelation.

If something is flatly false according to you, and you say that "outloud", and that this falsity, whatever it may be, leads to seemingly unrelated errors that touch nearly every aspect of Christian doctrine, don't you think that a more explicit and specific, and supported, accusation should be made? Especially from someone who says to everyone else, "saying it doesn't make it so."

No, I don't.

I haven't been making bald claims without supporting what I've been saying and it isn't necessary to support every generalization that comes up so long as one is willing to do so if asked. If you want me to substantiate any claim that I make then all you have to do is ask me to do so!

But you won't do that for two reasons. First, and most importantly, you won't ask me to do so because you KNOW that I can and also because you'd lose your mind with how derailed your thread would become by your having asked me such an all encompassing question.

I am quite sure such an outlook as is presented in the idealist interpretive school would turn everything you believe, that which you have stated in any case, on its head.

No doubt it would!

Was this an intentional admission on your part that what I've been saying isn't irrelevant?

But that is beside the point.

How on Earth could that ever be beside the point?

And please don't attempt to do the explicit, specific and supported thing here as it would involve the entire Bible and derailing in a thousand directions (thousand used here symbolically to represent a large number).

Thanks for at least tacitly admitting that you know for a fact that I am fully capable of establishing the claims that I make and that I am more than willing to do so. I (and those who already agree with me) am the one who has to beg people to make an argument.

However, you could start your own thread: something along the lines of "Refuting Idealism With Scripture". I might even join in.

You've already started a thread about idealism! Why not refute it here?

Clete

 

[Clete]

I have already done that. Idealism is only reasonable if you can't find it in history. I found it. You are welcome to join.

If you CAN'T find it in history?

Maybe you could provide a link to your thread.